<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on The best news you'll read all week about cancer ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T12:43:03-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mixing apples and oranges]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79881]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're talking about two different things. You say &quot;cancer rates&quot; but the charts are all about death rates from cancer, which is not the same thing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79881]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Greenknight_z]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:28:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What savings?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79828]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Add to that comment that the cost spent per person doesn't necessary decrease due to higher survival rates.  In fact, logically, if those people don't die they will surely incur additional health costs in the future.  There is no savings in survival.  There is savings in prevention.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79828]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Havokmon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:26:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How can Smart Planet get it so mixed up?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79835]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Actually, this story is totally illogical, misleading - if not completely erroneous. While these cancer rates will decline, it will be from the reduction in the one factor that causes all of them - inflammation. Diet - especially the intake of imbalanced fats (omega 3/6 ratios ) reducing arachidonic acid cascade bi-product levels, excess sugar (processed simple carbohydrates) - the resulting obesity, and yes obviously smoking - all produce the inflammation that cause the bulk of these cancers - and diabetes. It won't be the screening programs that reduce the cancer rates - screening has no impact on cancer development - just survival rates once you have it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11962-79835]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dduggerbiocepts]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:20:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

