Printed letters, December 4, 2012

I recently read an article in The Daily Sentinel headlined, “Mammograms lead to unneeded treatment.” It is kind of ironic, but the very same day you ran the article, I received a phone call from a pathologist at Community Hospital stating that a biopsy I had gotten the day before came back positive as cancer.

I am 51 and get my mammogram every year in the fall. I had no idea the lump was even there, as I have very lumpy, bumpy, fibrous tissue. I had gone in for my first mammogram Nov. 2 and then was called back in for another lateral-view screening. The radiologist did not like what she saw and did an ultrasound the same day. Then a biopsy was scheduled for the day before your article ran.

I am just beginning this journey, but I can tell you I am not taking any chances: I will have it removed. I have two beautiful grandchildren whom I want to see graduate from high school.

The cancer is at stage two, and if I would have waited another year for a screening, there is a possibility it could be at stage four by then. I recommend to women to continue self-examining and get a mammogram once a year.

These studies make me angry. How do they know women are over-treated? Do they let certain cancers grow in women, possibly even causing death, to get their results? I would rather take my chances with a biopsy and know for sure, than to just let it grow and see what happens.

Women should keep examining and keep doing the mammograms. I never thought it would happen to me. It’s always somebody else. Well, it happened to me.

CINDY FERGUSON

Collbran

Friends of Northern Dolores 
share delight in Juanita Arch

I so enjoyed Bill Haggerty’s recent article about his hike to “Wonderful Juanita Arch.” His descriptions brought back fantastic memories of my own.

Last fall, my husband, our little dog, Mr. B, and I joined a group of folks with the Friends of Northern Dolores for a similar adventure in search of Juanita Arch within the wild Maverick Canyon.

We canoed across the muddy Dolores and scrambled through rough-and-tumble Maverick Canyon. Rounding a bend for the first glimpse of the immensity of that natural bridge was a real “wow” moment.

On our return hike down to the Dolores, light, refreshing rain began fall. As the canyon opened to show us what seemed like a never-ending view extending down Maverick Canyon, across the Dolores and into Sinbad Valley, a silence fell over our group. The fading autumn light and the moisture in the air had turned the landscape around us into a dream-like, water-colored reality. A magical moment indeed!

Needless to say, it was an incredible afternoon. We found ourselves inspired not only by the contours and crevices of the canyon, but also by the Friends of Northern Dolores supporters we met. Their enthusiasm for the wilderness and for the hiker’s enjoyment of it was a delight. Their vision of a National Conservation Area designation for this area (which would include Maverick Canyon and Juanita Arch) definitely has my support.

AMBER BENSON

Whitewater

 

New businesses, job creators 
and R&D should be tax-free.

Those who reject the idea of taxes in principle are economic traitors. Even churches suggest percentages, as well as racketeers.

On taxes: Tax breaks for millionaires? Are we subsidizing the egos of the poor little rich? Are they so lame that they need such incentives? Are we referring to disposable income? Is this systemic genocide of the rich? Is it a socialist plot to damn capitalism?

The better question is: Who is behind the belief that taxes are bad and stifle growth? It is a privilege to pay taxes on disposable income.

However, investments that generate that income should be tax-free. That’s where the incentives are.

All new business and research and development, all job incentives kept inside the U.S. and any new business (large or small) should be tax free.

Does Grover Norquist keep company that far from anti-American interests? He sure has a lot of power over half of Congress.

FRED STEWART

Grand Junction

 

Owning Park Place no big deal 
under socialist Monopoly rules

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, my grandkids and I played the short version of Monopoly. At the end of the evening, Daniel went bankrupt and Carter had the largest pile of wealth and assets, winning the game. The rest of us fell someplace in between the two. We all learned a lot about capitalism and a free marketplace.

Because we had just re-elected a president that I believe is a socialist, we decided to change the rules. We then took all the money and real estate back and redistributed everything evenly among all of the players.

The next morning at breakfast, while talking over the experience, we all decided that something great had been lost in that exercise, and the game was no longer fun to play. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

BOB CASKEY

Grand Junction



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


Ummm, Mr. Caskey—weren’t you a State employee?  Getting paid with MY money redistributed to YOU?  What on Earth are you whining about?

Page 1 of 1






Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy