"Plebs omnis plaudit ut me minore sepius audit."
TREBLE BELL, COMBE RALEIGH CHURCH, DEVON.
I don't know of this latest 'research' but I find it hard to believe. If there is indeed an association, I am quite sure other unexamined factors are more likely to be responsible. A majority of smokers for example DON'T get lung cancer but die from other causes - though these too, might be linked. Much of the modern approach and effort of modern medicine and medical intervention is misplaced, with too great a reliance on chemicals to cure conditions created by the environmental and social conditions pertaining to the individual. It is the main reason why even in a developed country like Britain there can still be a twenty year gap in life expectation between different groups. Visualisation is very important. If we see ourselves as discrete organisms only, we miss the fact that via our lungs, gut and skin we interact with whatever environment we find ourselves in. In other words, in a very real sense, our 'insides' replicate our 'outsides'. The lungs are organs that are particularly sensitive to whatever the constituents - either physical or chemical - that are breathed in and react to them in physiological and biological ways. Diseases of the lung are much more likely to reflect air quality than food quality. Similarly the digestive tract is more likely to reflect problems with food (including drink) Both routes (plus skin of course) can and do have generalised somatic effects. So could bagels increase the risk of LUNG cancer by 50%? Possible but highly unlikely I would say. Far more likely are the car fumes breathed in, on the way to purchase them!
The above was in response to this scientific finding reported here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12187186/White-bread-bagels-and-rice-increase-the-risk-of-lung-cancer-by-49-per-cent.html
A recent list of confirmatory studies here: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.co.uk/
From here: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/proof-of-existence-of-mini-nukes-and.html"Monday, August 20, 2007Proof of the Existence of Mini-Nukes and Micro-NukesFrom the Anonymous PhysicistMore and more people are realizing that other theories proposed could not have destroyed the WTC, and are limited hangouts. As more people realize that the WTC was likely demolished via small nuclear bombs (likely with subsidiary conventional explosives), some are now claiming that milli-nukes (mini-nukes), or micro-nukes don’t even exist. Spooked and I have addressed this issue before. Here first is proof of the “Nuclear rifle” from the 1950’s, no less. The .01 kiloton (kt) TNT equivalent is about 1/1000th of the Hiroshima (20KT) blast. And here is a govt scientist, Peter Leitner, PhD, speaking to a Congressional Committee, in 1998. This is proof of nuclear bombs down into the range of “several pounds of TNT.” He stated, “These experiments involve the ACTUAL TESTING of extremely low-yield fission devices (as low as the equivalent of several pounds of TNT) within a confined environment.” Several pounds of TNT is equivalent to about 1/10,000,000th (one ten millionth) of the Hiroshima blast. Thus the U.S. Govt admitted having micro-nukes, and beyond in 1998. Note that this public admission stated that the testing was done “in a controlled environment.” Clearly, the gov't has had milli-nukes and micro-nukes for some time."