Bowel cancer risk doubles in a generation. Red or processed meat is a problem.

increased longevity was not the only reason behind the rise.

She said: "More and more people are overweight or obese than they were in the past. We know that most people are not getting the recommended level of physical activity. And we know that lots of people exceed the recommended limits of alcohol consumption."

via telegraph.co.uk

Bulging waistlines, heavier drinking and a drop in the amounts of exercise people take are thought to be important reasons for the rise.

However, the fact that people now live longer than they did is also a major factor, as bowel cancer tends to be a disease of old age.

We now tend to eat a little less less red or processed meat and a little more fruit and vegetables.

DO NOT EVER EAT PROCESSED MEAT, ITS CARCINOGENIC.
World Cancer Research Fund announced that no one should eat processed meat ever because of its incontrovertible link to colon cancer. Second, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron made sausage the centerpiece of their photo-op during the president's trip to the United Kingdom. The World Cancer Research Fund's new report, the most comprehensive ever conducted on colon cancer, confirmed that both red and processed meats play a significant role in the development of colorectal cancer. The authors found that 45 percent of all colorectal cancer cases could be prevented if we ate less meat and more fruits and vegetables and made other lifestyle changes. You can't begrudge heads of state a bit of choreographed symbolism (pour the Guinness now, please). But when obesity, heart disease, cancer and other food-related conditions are epidemics costing hundreds of billions of dollars and a great many lives, the.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/obama-health-food_b_870853.html
http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2011/06/08/just-how-contami...

WikiLeaks documents shed light on US bombing colonial aggression intervention war in Libya

Far from initiating a “humanitarian” intervention to protect civilians against Muammar Gaddafi’s government, Washington backed the NATO intervention for one reason only—the installation of a regime that better serves the strategic interests of the US, as well as the operations of the giant oil and gas companies.

via axisoflogic.com

Libya doesn't want to steal oil from its people and give t to western corporations. So, bomb them.

The oil giants and the US government were alarmed by threats Gaddafi made, in a January 2009 video-conference to Georgetown University students, to nationalise the oil and gas industry.

Reasons for war, invasion and killing of president Quaddafi: oil

Gaddafi’s policy forced oil and gas corporations to renegotiate their contracts under the latest iteration of Libya’s Exploration and Productions Sharing Agreement (EPSA IV).

Between 2007 and 2008, major companies such as ExxonMobil, Petro-Canada, Repsol (Spain), Total (France), ENI (Italy), and Occidental (US) were compelled to sign new deals with the NOC—on significantly less favourable terms than they had previously enjoyed—and were collectively made to pay $5.4 billion in upfront “bonus” payments.

August 2009, US Senator John McCain led a high-profile bipartisan congressional delegation to meet with Gaddafi.

McCain characterised the “overall pace of the bilateral relationship as excellent”. Senator Joe Lieberman said “we never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi,” before calling Libya an “important ally in the war on terrorism.”

major “sedimentary basins with oil and gas resources had been discovered in Libya,” with seismic data indicating “much more remained to be discovered across the country.”

The scramble by dozens of international oil and gas companies to cash in on the lifting of sanctions, however, soon produced two major problems for the US government.

Firstly, in the words of a November 2007 cable, “Libyan resource nationalism”—policies designed to increase the Libyan government’s “control over and share of revenue from hydrocarbon resources.”

The cable ominously concludes that the US should demonstrate “the clear downsides” to the Libyan regime of such an approach.

second unwelcome consequence of the lifting of sanctions was that it enabled Libya to develop closer relations with US rivals, notably in Europe, China and Russia. A June 2008 cable describes a “recent surge of interest in Libya on the part of non-Western IOCs (particularly from India, Japan, Russia and China), who have won the bulk of concessions in the NOC’s recent acreage bid rounds.”

March 2009 cable describes how Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi witnessed the ratification of the Italy-Libya “friendship and cooperation” treaty, under which Italy was to pay $200 million per year for 25 years as compensation for “colonial wrong-doing,” in exchange for guaranteeing “Italian companies preference for development projects.”
An Italian official told the US embassy that the order of Italy’s interests in Libya was “oil, oil, oil, and migration.”

A May 2009 cable reports that Gaddafi told the Commander of US African Command General William Ward that “China would prevail” in Africa “because it does not interfere in internal affairs.”

WikiLeaks cables further demonstrate that the Obama administration’s bid to topple the Libyan government and its recognition of the unelected “rebel” regime in Benghazi have nothing whatever to do with “humanitarian” concerns.

9/11Truth Controlled Demolition Scientific Evidence Discussion debunk

via firegeezer.com

well Mr Dave, the irrefutable scientific evidence is ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Have you been where? Searching for it? Reading it? Evaluating it?

Well let me repeat the main lines of irrefutable scientific evidence, leaving aside the common sense notion that if you saw the video, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition, and that is mainly because it is a controlled demolition. Thinking anything else means assailing a common sense.

the official investigation is demonstrably and intentionally false or nonexistent.

ok. and add to each line - NOT possible other than controlled demolition of 3 steel skyscrapers.

1. Sudden onset ...
2. Symmetric uniform collapse ...
3. Midair pulverization ...
4. Free fall speed ...
5. Fall into its footprint, through the path of greatest resistance ...
6. Victims cremated ...
7. Pyroclastic fine dust ...
8. Melted iron on the floor of WTC site, burning for months ....
9. Nanothermite explosive found in dust of WTC ...
10. Iron spherules found in dust of WTC ...

Some resources to cite:
www.911investigate.blogspot.com
www.krunchd.com/911
www.ae911truth.org

www.WorldNewsRecord.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/911news

>>>>>really? Where's your scientific evidence? I'm an engineer and the "official" investigation was correct.

>>>>>911 is controlled demolition therefore inside false flag operation. Per irrefutable scientific evidence, per common sense.

Sudden onset, symmetric free fall speed collapse midair pulverization.

Bodies cremated?? Buildings evaporated? Or they just walked away?