That's the benefit. I didn't mean to suggest there was no benefit.

Now, what about the harms? For every identified cancer, how many healthy breasts were biopsied? For every cancer and especially for every "pre-cancerous" lesion that was treated, how many of them would have had any effect on the duration or quality of the woman's life if left untreated? What percentage of cancer treatments serve only to extend a woman's suffering? What is the quality of a woman's life after cancer treatment damages her heart and lungs? Regardless of mortality/survival, what is the recurrence rate?

Some of those answers are intangible. Some of them are still being researched. Others have never been studied - which is a great disservice. Because they are all important questions that should be considered before someone submits to screening. After screening identifies a so-called abnormality is not a good time to be making these decisions.

I'm going to make up some numbers here by way of illustration just so it's clear what terms mean. THIS IS NOT A REAL STUDY - there is no such study. I encourage everyone to do her own searches to find out what is and is not known on these questions. But to understand the statistics, one has to understand the language. Let's say 2,000 women are identified with DCIS. Half of them undergo lumpectomy with radiation, half of them receive no treatment. Of the treatment group, 80 eventually develop fatal breast cancer. Of the non-treatment group, 160 eventually develop fatal breast cancer. One way of looking at that is to say that treatment reduced mortality by 50%. Another way of looking at it is that for every 100 women who are treated, only eight are helped, and 92 are disfigured and irradiated unnecessarily.

Make your own decisions. Absolutely. And don't give my opinion any more credence than you would anyone ranting on the Internet - please don't. But please do become fully informed before making any decision about your health.