The English language is a truly marvelous and evolving means of communication at all levels of need: poetry, romance, art, science, technology, biology, history, etc., etc. It is unabashedly eclectic and unashamed of flagrantly borrowing from other language and peoples and incorporating new words as if they were standard English. The English of the original King James Version of the Bible was so different from modern English that it had to be remodeled into its current form in the eighteenth century; so, it could be understandable. When Joseph Smith dictated his Book of Mormon to his scribe, Oliver Cowdery in the early 1800s, the scribe could scarcely understand his prophet let alone the nearly unique words, phrases, and place names he was hearing. The next several editions required a modification to comply with Standard American English and to correct over 100,000 spelling and punctuation “errors”—none of which changed the meaning of the Book, but all of which were valuable to allow readers to understand the text.

                English grows exponentially every year, adding 500,000+ words on a temporary basis and about 20,000 new words which are officially added to dictionaries as their usage becomes increasingly common. The History of Words was begun to be catalogued by the Philological Society of London in 1859. Over the next seventy-one years the initial ten volumes was published—now known as the Oxford English Dictionary. The current version contains over 600,000 entries (National Geographic, December, 2013).

                The same National Geographic article—Exploration, A Graphic Look, English by the Book, listed some of the sources of English: Eskimo (e.g. igloo), Aleut (e.g. kayak), North American (e.g. Raccoon), Central and South American (e.g. Guacamole), Middle Eastern and Afro-Asiatic  (e.g. seersucker), African, (e.g. safari), Indian (e.g. Bungalow), Australian Aboriginal (e.g. Kangaroo), Central Eastern Asian (Yogurt), Austronesian (e.g. Boondocks), and, of course, European (e.g. German-Hamburger, French-joyful, Italian-antipasto, Swedish-Smorgasbord, etc). At the time of the KJV version of the Bible’s compilation, English was more like German than it was like modern English.

                Using only the Oxford English Dictionary as the historical source, the phenomenal development and accretion of English and its adaptability to change is not just remarkable, but it is unique among languages, many of which are losing users at a steady and disturbing rate. Prior to the 12^th century there were fewer than 7,500 permanent words; 600+ were added during that century; more than 15,000 during the 14^th century; nearly 19,000 during the 15^th; over 80,000 the next two centuries; 100,000 during the 18^th and 19^th centuries; and 36,000 became standard new English words during the 20^th century. The rate of acquisition of new words is skyrocketing as English receives contributions from all around the developed world for understanding and naming technological terms. As English speakers travel and learn new words and phrases and translate them into anglicized form; as foreign speakers interact with English speakers, especially Americans, new terms creep steadily in to give meaning to actions and meanings previously only clear to the foreign language. And there is the neologisms from science fiction and fantasy (blast-off, space shuttle, robot, cyberspace, cyborg, Lunarian) There is even a science fiction dictionary-–Brave New Worlds: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction, ed. Jeff Prucher. All sorts of contributors to the twenty-first century have given us new words such as supernova, racist, techno, Icecapade, oink, and on and on into the hundreds of thousands.

                Gone are wyrd, seax, good freer, my liege, scop, and atheling, and maybe here to stay are see ya, hey, what’s up, take care, bye now and even cool—as in very good—but wait a bit; even those phrases may go the way of the dodo bird. English is like that. Maybe we will live to see English adopt phonetic spelling as its mode of written expression. Maybe we will do away with punctuation; we are well on our way. Maybe James Joyce’s stream of consciousness will become the rage; oh, wait a moment, we’re already there—it’s called twitter, Facebook, and texting. And maybe all we will have left is SnapChat and Instagram where our communication is gone in seven seconds. I can hardly wait.

Writing developed between the 600 BCE and the 300 BCE, first as complicated mnemonic symbols carved or painted on stones which developed into a system of ideograms or pictographs through a process of simplification. Later, to make transportation of written information portable, wood became the medium of choice—wooden tablets were found on Easter Island, and later Chinese used bamboo. Still Later, syllabic and alphabetic or segmental writing emerged to fill a pragmatic need for simplicity, efficiency, and portability. Then the Chinese moved ahead to use silk, writing with brushes. Other materials used included: bone, bronze, pottery, shell, in India, dried palm tree leaves, clay tablets, papyrus (about 2,400 BCE) and in Mesoamerica, the Amate plant and animal hides. Papyrus was used for the first recognizable books in the form of a scroll of several sheets pasted together, for a total length of 10 yards to over 40 yards long, often rolled into a cylindrical scroll.

Romans used wax-coated wooden tablets upon which they could write and erase by using a stylus. Parchment progressively replaced papyrus throughout the Roman Empire during the 3^rd century BCE. The invention of parchment is attributed to the king of Pergamon, from which comes the name “pergamineum,” which linguistically evolved to the present day word, “parchment”. Parchment was made from the skins of animals–sheep, cattle, donkey, antelope, etc. Parchment proved easier to conserve over time; it was more solid, and allowed one to erase text. It was, and still is, a very expensive medium because of the relative paucity of material and the time required to produce a document. Vellum is the finest quality of parchment.

True paper was invented in China around the 1st century ACE. The inventive Chinese produced texts which could be reproduced by woodblock printing to enable diffusion of Buddhist texts on a large-scale production level. Chinese scrolls became scrolls folded concertina-style, scrolls bound at one edge—so-called “butterfly books”. The first printing of books started during the Tang Dynasty about 618–907 ACE. The oldest existing printed book is a Tang Dynasty Diamond Sutra which dates to 868 ACE.

By the end of antiquity– 2nd-4th centuries, ACE–the codex had replaced the scroll. Books ceased to be a cumbersome continuous roll, but developed instead into a collection of sheets attached at the back. It became possible to access a precise point in the text directly. The codex is easy to rest on a table, which permits the reader to take notes while he or she is reading. The codex form improved with the separation of words, capital letters, and punctuation, which permitted silent reading. Tables of contents and indices facilitated direct access to information. This form was so effective that it is still the standard book form, over 1500 years after its appearance.

The Maya had a writing system capable of conveying any concept that can be conveyed via speech, and other Mesoamerican cultures had ideographic writing—some of which were attached to form books—during the 3^rd-8^th centuries ACE.

Early on and until fairly recently, book culture resulted in financial rewards largely for copiers, scribes, printers, and sellers. The authors of antiquity had no rights related to their published works, nor did publishers. Anyone could have a text copied, recopied, or even altered with impunity. Scribes and copiers earned money and glory; and authors only sometimes earned glory. In a few instances, a patron provided money; and from time to time a book made its author famous. It was not considered inappropriate to copy another author’s style, nor was an author’s work usually regarded as a personal accomplishment.

Books were censored very early on, usually for religious or political reasons. For example, the works of Protagoras were burned because he argued for agnosticism and reasoned that a person could not know whether or not the gods existed. Frequently, cultural and political conflicts or simple ignorance led to important periods of book destruction: in 303, the emperor Diocletian ordered the burning of Christian texts. Some Christians (usually, proto-Christians) later burned whole libraries, and especially heretical or non-canonical Christian texts. The Visigoths destroyed the library of Ephesus because they did not know what books were. The great Library of Alexander was destroyed in 47 ACE.  These practices are found throughout human history and a few despotic, hyperreligious, or politically backward nations even today still greatly censor or burn books.

Another effective form of censorship existed as books in some historic nations were reserved for the elite; such books were not originally a medium for expressive liberty. It may serve to confirm the values of a political system, as during the reign of the emperor Augustus, who skillfully surrounded himself with great authors. Roman books were printed in Latin which effectively limited the readership to Romans and those educated in the Roman tradition (which came from the Greeks). There has always been private and religious censorship which is probably more important than that imposed by political despots. Parents and religious groups exert great influence on the books individuals choose to read in private, to destroy, to throw away, to prohibit selling, and what to pass along to their children, a characteristic that gets passed on down generations. Political differences of opinion divide families, and populations even more definitively and intensely than religious bias. Private censorship is significant and thrives throughout a great many cultures in the world to this day.

Although books were reasonably available in early America, they were large, expensive, and cumbersome. The United States and only 500 bookstores limited to the twelve largest cities. A hardcover book cost $2.50, the equivalent of $40 in today’s value. In 1938, Robert Fair de Graff came up with a revolutionary new idea for books. He hypothesized that Americans would read more, and authors and publishers would thrive if books were made much smaller. This would enable ordinary people to have good books of fiction and nonfiction. Simon & Schuster launched De Graff’s idea as Pocket Books in 1939, offering books that were 4×6 inches and cost only a quarter. That produced an American revolution in reading. Books were then sold in almost any conceivable location; so, anyone could find, buy, and enjoy his/her own library. Soon, the entrepreneurial nature of Americans flooded the many markets with books of high literary value and low, books of special interest like westerns, science fiction, mysteries, thrillers, historical fiction, thinly disguised smut (such as Lolita or Fifty Shades of Grey), and frank pornography—a little something for the whole family.

As is commonly the case, the success of pocket books begat further capitalistic enterprise until prices increased, fast selling junk like 101 Uses for a Dead Cat became common. And the junk became more expensive and more popular than the paperbacks that had some redeeming value. The costs began to rival that of hardbacks. Again, the American entrepreneurial capitalistic spirit rose to the occasion: enter Iphones, kindles, Ipads, recorded books, and e-readers. There is only one book chain left in the United States. Perhaps readers of physical books will go the way of anthologies of poetry. I love my own books, but have had to give in to see most of them sold electronically. In truth, I have to admit with a tinge of shame, that most of my reading is from electronic sources. Heavy sigh.

            Here is a little snippet regarding a questionable—usually illegal stock market practice that I came across while doing research for my book, Crossing the Cult, which will be published this month or next.

Devon nods in acknowledgment but is none too enthusiastic about where all of this is headed.

            “So, a little legal tutorial for all of us. Let’s start with the greenmail issues with some history. Paying greenmail became controversial in the eighties. Long before that stock market critics viewed it as harmful to U.S. business interests and wanted it to be made criminal, but the courts were slow to act. The critics argued that greenmail is little more than a bribe, and bribes in the stock market are illegal. What produced progress came with litigation instituted by corporate shareholders. They protested the obvious: greenmail during takeover bids is frequently just a means of extorting profits. It wasn’t until well into the nineties that state legislatures began to take an interest. One of the examples–which is taught in law schools–is when a famous corporate raider used greenmail to try and take over Disney in 1984. He bought nearly six and a half percent of Disney stock before the corporation execs caught on. They almost immediately announced a nearly $400 million acquisition of their own stock to make the company less attractive and that stopped the takeover. The corporate raider gracefully accepted that he had failed and cried all the way to the bank to deposit his nearly $60 million profit.

            “Of course, that was a very expensive alternative for the Disney board, even with their vast resources. Then the stockholders weighed in. Later that same year, the stockholders sued the directors of the corporation and the corporate raider and won an injunction—one of the very few judgments which pointed the legal finger at greenmail practices themselves as constituting unjust enrichment. The poor raider had to return all but about twenty million dollars. Strange as it may seem, he was not all that upset at losing the suit. Disney got a wrist slap and had to promise not to do it again. There were those who charged that Disney’s caving in to greenmail was the equivalent of embezzlement by the directors and out-and-out blackmail by the corporate raiders.

I have learned some interesting things while doing research for my several books. One of those is brought out in my novella Friends at Homeland Security which will shortly be published. There are multiple tools available to law enforcement which tip the scales of justice in the direction of law enforcement especially in the ongoing efforts to interdict organized crime. Some of the most potent of those tools are the RICO statutes, or just the threat of using them against a criminal. One of my characters in Friends at Homeland Security describes the laws to a likely suspect:

Det. Redworth takes over for the moment, “The acronym RICO—I’m sure you know—is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Its main provisions include hefty fines—as much as double the gross profits or proceeds from the criminal gains–and prison sentences of twenty-to-life. You lose any interest and any present or future rights to any property involved in the racketeering enterprise and forfeit any ill-gotten gains that came out of the enterprise including money or any property or objects of value. You will have to post a satisfactory performance bond. You can’t transfer property to anyone to evade the penalties. Any property given to your wife or family resulting from the imposition of RICO penalties will be forfeited to the federal government. In very brief language–short of the death penalty–getting hung up by RICO is the ultimate bummer.”

Throughout my professional career, I have been engaged directly or indirectly in protecting vulnerable and maltreated women and children. My latest book—Wednesday’s Child, to be published shortly—contains some research pertinent to the subject and which should give a moment of pause to anyone who cares about the humanitarian crisis that exists in the darkness of our world and in our ignorance or unwillingness to comprehend it. In the book, I put the following researched information into the mouths of some of my characters; and I would like to share them with you:

“Traffickers make an estimated $52 Billion annually; with that kind of money coming in, they are immune to any kind of moral, ethical, and even legal persuasion—much like our ever escalating illicit drug problem.

“An associated area of crime is child pornography—please don’t say ‘kiddie porn’; that trivializes the problem or makes it sound cute. It is anything but cute; child pornography destroys the lives of our most vulnerable citizens and wrecks the lives of many families. The monsters who make this hideous footage have the children hold homemade placards bearing the pseudonyms of the makers of the films. What follows is ghastly: children pleading for help, being sexually tortured, infants being used as sex toys, and on and on beyond any imagination you and I might have. Every bit of it is vile, and every bit of it is lucrative.

“These are the commodities of the Dark Web. In 2013, we [the FBI] made 7,386 arrests. Last year it was 8,992. That figure climbs every year, and we only catch a small percentage of the criminals involved so far as our nation’s sixty-one Internet Crimes Against Children task forces and the NCMEC [Exploited Children Division at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children] can determine. Every day, parents report with pride and photographs—even images of sonograms–that they have ‘another baby to add to the game’. Our best estimate is that there are well over 50,000 adults in America who trade such horrifying images among each other at any given point in time. The traffickers in this filth have national—even global–encrypted IP addresses, password-protected sites, and huge hidden clearinghouses.

“Law enforcement has cyber-policing tools such as IACA [Internet Crimes Against Children Cops] used to break distribution rings and to track the child victims. We can now virtually map the locations of suspects and follow their internet transactions in some cases. We can often zero in on suspects 24/7 who are actively downloading material at the moment to their individual computers. We have disrupted rings of as many as 2,000 distributors with our electronic policing capacities. All of this comes at a huge cost, not the least of which is the terrible emotional impact on the investigators, many of whom have young children of their own. There is a very large turnover. Many people we train simply cannot bear to see the images any longer; and no one can blame them; but the costs of training them goes to waste. We try to teach them to look without looking; but that is probably naïve; and many of our best people become alcoholics or need treatment for depression.”

DFBI Crutchfield describes in detail the massive effort the bureau and other American law enforcement agencies are putting into the interdiction of trafficking of all kinds. He applauds the efforts of everyone in the room and all of the police forces around the world who are involved, but…

“My friends–my fellow Americans–we do not have sufficient resources or sufficient manpower—even as agencies of the federal government–to make even a dent in the horrors of this new slave trade. No country alone or even in combination can eliminate this horrific scourge on civilization that organized crime is perpetrating. We must have a public and private cooperation and will power. We are met here tonight to ask you to help us by contributing as generously as you can to making our efforts effective. Staff people are now passing out brochures detailing the activities of involved organizations and pledge cards. Please be generous.”

Crutchfield resumes his seat and the Deputy Director of UNODC [United Nations Office on Drug and Crime] takes the podium.

“UNODC manages the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Human Trafficking–especially women and children. The fund was launched in 2010 by then Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Trust Fund supports the provision of on-the-ground humanitarian, legal, and financial aid to victims of trafficking, and provides members of the public an avenue through which they can donate to this important cause. I echo my counterpart tonight–Director Crutchfield–in my appeal for your help. As the only United Nations entity focusing on the criminal justice element of these crimes, the work that UNODC does to combat human trafficking and the smuggling of migrants is supported by the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and its protocols on trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling. And as fine and generous as the United Nations is, we need more help.

“It is the goal of my office to make the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, an early and persevering success. While the best-known form of human trafficking is for the purpose of sexual exploitation, hundreds of thousands of victims are also trafficked for forced labor, domestic servitude, child begging, or the removal of their organs. Cases are seen in all parts of the world and victims are targeted irrespective of gender, age, or background; although, of course the poor and defenseless are most often targeted. Children are trafficked from Eastern to Western Europe to be used for begging or as pickpockets; young girls from Africa are deceived with promises of modeling, acting, or au pair jobs. But they find themselves trapped in a world of sexual and pornographic exploitation or in other servitude from which they cannot escape.

“Again, victims of trafficking are most often enslaved for vile sexual purposes, but they are also found in kitchens, cleaning guesthouses, restaurants, and bars, or toiling in subhuman agricultural slavery. Tourism infrastructure creates markets for forced and exploitative begging, street hawking, prostitution, and other illegal activities. Children–especially those young enough to be virgins–are usually trafficked from diverse countries to the Gulf States–in particular Saudi Arabia—where virginity has a premium; and once robbed of virginity, the child may service dozens of men a day. Children are also kidnapped or sold by their parents from rural areas to urban centers for forced labor or sexual exploitation. Migrants smuggled from the Horn of Africa rely on the assistance of criminal networks to enter Yemen. They are all vulnerable to being robbed and exploited; and when they arrive in Yemen, they are very vulnerable to becoming victims of TiP [Trafficking in Persons] with all of the attendant evils and crimes.

“We in the United Nations worry about the increase in the number of girl victims, who now make up two thirds of all trafficked children.  Girls now constitute 15 to 20 per cent of the total number of all detected victims–including adults–whereas boys comprise about 10 per cent. Perhaps our worst fears should be for the large percent of children held in captivity who are never detected. This observation is based on carefully gathered data supplied by 132 countries.

“The 2020 Global Report on Trafficking in Persons released by UNODC has revealed that the per cent of all victims of human trafficking officially detected globally has been increasing by seven to ten percent a year.”

The previous election cycle and this current one have made me into a confirmed independent. To be blunt and brief, there is not a single declared candidate in any party for whom I would cast a vote. However, I do know the man or woman for whom I would vote, or at least the qualifications:

1. Willing to submit for public perusal white papers declaring, in detail, the measures he or she will take to deal with substantive issues of the time and the future.
2. Willing to respond verbally and in writing to questions that relate to serious issues, and not to dodge them.
3. Willing never to answer with self-serving non sequiturs.
4. Willing to defend the country and its citizens, his or her point of view, and what he or she deems to be the right choice, not the politically correct or expedient one.
5. Willing to avoid the extremes of the left and the right. Able to stand up to any and all of the extremists.
6. Has a record of working for all the people, including all races, socioeconomic classes, genders, and people who differ in their opinions with him or her.
7. Has a record of choosing the hard right answer rather than the easy politically safe one.
8. Is a patriot, not a jingoist nor a professional critic of the U.S.
9. Is educated on a variety of subjects pertinent to governing at whatever level the elective office.
10. Is willing to pursue term limitations, a rational immigration policy (not just “build a bigger wall” or “let them all in; so, they and their friends will give the politician their votes.”), desires real ethics legislation, agrees with line-item vetoes, is opposed to sneaking in a change to a bill for his or any other legislator’s personal political advantage, vigorous about enforcing and obeying laws—even unpopular ones such as equality of opportunity for same-sex couples, and all other subsets of American people.
11. Has a viable plan to improve the economy, eradicate inner city and rural poverty, crime, and lack of education to make rational and bipartisan changes to afford Americans a safe, effective, and affordable health care system (that will require a real fight to break down the overweaning power of bigPharma, avaricious insurance companies, and the American Trial Lawyers Association), to establish rational and appropriate foreign relations, and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, etc.
12. Is willing to support a strong military, not a bloated one. Is willing to work towards the closure of unnecessary military bases despite the political consequences.
13. Is willing to face up to confrontations all the way to military action if possible, but is always mindful that his or her first and most important duty is to protect Americans and to avoid putting the men and women of the military into harm’s way unnecessarily.
14. Is willing to compromise with the other party to get things done.

Yes, I know this is all naïve and impossible to achieve given the corruption of political institutions at all levels. However, the requirements I list are rational and failure to implement them will eventuate in the failure of America. We are well on our way on that downhill slope already. We need a dark horse with integrity. Any volunteers?

I recently became more interested in the prevalence of breast cancer since I have begun to see an alarming number of new cases in the area where I live—more than I remember for decades. The statistics are stark: In the 1940s–when good statistics began to accrue–the rate of breast cancer was about one case per eighteen women; by 2003, that rate increased to one per eight women in the United States. At that rate–and related to the possible underlying causes–some statisticians prognosticate a rate of one per five women by 2020-2033. The best evidence—according to the Breast Cancer Fund meta-analysis–suggests that the cause lies in longer exposure of the breasts to bombardment by estrogen on breast receptors. That is due to several factors—the most important of which is the earlier onset of menarche (first menstruation)–and that, in turn, is related to weight; on average, menarche occurs when a girl reaches a weight of 110-120 pounds. American girls are reaching that weight at a much earlier age, and menarche is now occurring significantly earlier than fifty and forty years ago. In fact, early onset of puberty is now the norm, rather than the exception. There remains, of course, a fairly wide range of difference among American girls. Statistically normal onset of puberty can range from ages 8-13 and takes, on average, 1.5-6 years to complete. As completion nears, more estrogen is produced; and breasts (male and female) are subjected to earlier and more prolonged influence of estrogen.

A second factor in the estrogen issue occurs at the other end of the continuum of women’s lives. Menopause is now prolonged as women take estrogen to ameliorate the symptoms of hot flashes, irregular or profuse periods, etc. In past decades, women had more pregnancies and breast fed more regularly and for longer periods of time thereby reducing the breasts’ exposure to estrogen unprotected by progesterone. Finally, American women are unfortunately more obese; fat produces estrogen, and the breasts continue to be targeted. In all probability, there are a variety of other causes of the high rate of breast cancer occurrence: environmental (including endocrine-disruptive chemicals such as PBBs and studies indicate that prenatal and early-life exposure to bisphenol A–originally developed as a synthetic hormone and now used in all polycarbonate plastics and food and beverage can lining—etc., many of which are known to mimic hormones like estrogen and can induce earlier sexual maturity), sociological, physiological, nutritional, psychological, and smoking—none of which are well enough understood. Genetics are fairly well understood, but the contribution is apparently limited.

A woman’s lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer is greatly increased if she inherits a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. That is often suspected in women who have a primary female relative—mother, sister, daughter, or grandmother, especially if she as all four. The risk in those cases is so dire that even presently cancer free girls and women should consider prophylactic bilateral mastectomy and post mastectomy prosthetic augmentation.

At present, about 12 percent of women in the general population can expect to develop breast cancer sometime during their lives. But a striking fifty-five to sixty-five percent of women who inherit the BRCA1 mutation and about forty-five percent of women who inherit a BRCA2 mutation will develop breast cancer by the age of seventy. About 1.3 percent of women in the general population will develop ovarian cancer sometime during their lives; but thirty-nine percent of women who inherit a harmful BRCA1 mutation and eleven to seventeen percent of women who inherit the BRCA2 mutation will develop ovarian cancer by age seventy. 

During the 1980s—2003, estrogen was considered to be beneficial to women’s cardiac health and was prescribed in fairly high doses to millions of women. The WHI [Women’s Health Initiative] was launched in 1991 involving almost 162 million generally healthy postmenopausal women. An alarming fact emerged indicating that estrogen not only did not provide benefit to women’s hearts, but in fact was harmful; and also increased the risk of breast cancer. Almost immediately, providers stopped prescribing estrogen supplementation to most women or prescribed lower dose formulations. Studies after that time indicated that since 2003 there has been a marked decline in the rate of new breast cancer cases, although the increasing population has kept the number of cases high. No other causes appear to have changed dramatically; so, the decline appears likely to be related to the drop in use of postmenopausal hormones. Hopefully, the rate will at least stabilize at the high incidence of twelve percent; but a further significant decline is not expected.

What should women do?

1. Be vigilant as a parent or as an individual. From the time girls first begin to bud breasts, they should develop the habit of regular self-examination of their breasts.
2. From at least mid-adolescence on, girls should self-examine and/or have a second competent examiner palpate their breasts regularly—the same examiner and at the same time each month, usually mid-period cycle. This can be a mother, sister, pediatrician or other medical provider, or husband. The examination should be thorough and based on American Cancer Society recommendations about technique.
3. Regular—usually yearly of every other year—mammograms. Consult a physician for information about radiation doses and risks vis á vis benefits of early detection.
4. Strictly avoid smoking, exposure to environmental toxins, and estrogen supplementation unless a physician needs to prescribe such supplements for cause, and obesity.
5. If pregnancy is desired, begin relatively early. There are many factors in family planning, but decreasing the risk of breast cancer may be afforded by multiple pregnancies. Unless there are health issues or failures in the performance of breast feeding, do it with each child and do it for a fairly prolonged period of time. The evidence is replete that breast feeding is a positive factor for the prevention of breast cancer.
6. If a breast mass is suspected, do not hesitate or procrastinate. See an experienced provider ASAP; get ultrasounds, mammograms, or MRIs sooner instead of later. Avoid CT scans or chest x-rays if possible. Choose alternatives when available.
7. There is a slight increase in breast cancer while women are on oral contraceptives which goes away after cessation. It may be a good idea to consider other forms of birth control.
8. Get a genetic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 early in life. Consider it an overridingly crucial test if the girl or woman has a first degree relative (one or more) who has been a victim of breast or ovarian cancer.
9. Consider bilateral mastectomy and breast prosthesis augmentation if the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tests are positive.
10. Lifelong healthy physical activity and strict avoidance of alcohol cuts the risk of developing breast cancer. The value of a healthy life style cannot be overemphasized.

Although these statistics are encouraging, an estimated 182,460 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in American women in 2008 alone [American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, Georgia, American Cancer Society, 2008.]. In 1975, the incidence (the number of new cases) of breast cancer was 107 per 100,000 for white women and 94 per 100,000 for black women. Twenty-nine years later in 2004, the number of new cases per year had risen to 128 per 100,000 for white women and 119 per 100,000 for black women [U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999—2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, 2007.].

Even though incidence increased during that 29-year period, mortality (the rate of death) for white women decreased. In 1975, 32 per 100,000 white women died of breast cancer, but by 2003, the figure* had declined to 24.6. For black women, though, mortality increased over the same period, rising from 30 per 100,000 black women in the population in 1975 to 34.1 per 100,000 in 2003 [U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999—2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, 2007.]. (Figure 1 shows this trend).

Figure 1. Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality, White Females vs.
Black Females. Age-adjusted to the 2004 U.S. standard population.
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2007

As screening programs have become more common, more cases of breast cancer are being detected in the earlier stages of disease, when they are more easily and successfully treated. During the 1980s and 1990s, diagnoses of early stage cancer and precancerous conditions have increased considerably Since the late 1990s these rates have remained steady. At the same time, diagnoses of cases at the advanced stages have remained stable or dropped slightly. [American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society, 2008.].