Drinking-Age Dilemma
Bravo to John McCardell for his efforts to lower the drinking age of this nation's young men and women ["Setting the Bar at 18," April 23]. It is baffling how a person at age 18 has the maturity to vote for president, marry and raise a family, drive a military vehicle in battle, carry and use automatic weapons while fighting, and, yes, die for our country. But upon returning home, this hero is not considered to have the right stuff to drink a beer responsibly.
BERLIN A. HECK
Broken Bow, Okla.
If McCardell is looking for support for dropping the legal age to drink, then college campuses are the perfect place. I agree that something needs to be done about "binge drinking" but disagree with getting a license to drink at a younger age as proposed. If kids do not obey the laws that we have now, then what makes McCardell think they will follow a new set of laws put in place? No matter what age is legal, there will be 16- or 17-year-olds breaking whatever rules they can. Why not leave it at a higher age? It just might save some lives.
DANIELLE GRAHAM
Hutchinson, Kan.
Java Jolt
Regarding "Speed Freaks" [April 23]: Kids jacked up on caffeine? Who's at fault here? We're seeing the results of learned behavior. It's the same as the problem of childhood obesity. How can we blame the kids when it's the parents and schools that tolerate an environment filled with unhealthy options?
DOUG HARPOLE
Extension Agent
4-H Youth Development
Warrenton, Va.
Your front cover read "Speed Freaks: From triple-shot lattes to Red Bull to Ritalin, Americans are more wired than ever." On the back cover was an ad with the heading, "Who knew all those double lattes would end up being so relaxing?" Did you intend for an ad to undermine your article?
RICHARD IMGRUND
Lansing, Mich.
College Prep
I cannot express my gratitude enough for the article "A Gap With Credibility" in the 2007 America's Best Colleges guidebook. I have been overcome with fear about all sorts of decisions in relation to the vast sea of uncertainty called college. When first approached with the idea of a gap year by my older sister, I was immediately put off by the thought. After I read the article, my views changed drastically. A gap year wouldn't be a bad choice as endless possibilities could be accomplished. A gap year would be better than going into my freshman year without experience or a clue as to what to major in. The article gave me a sense of hope and control as to what my future might hold.
JULIA COX
Kirtland, Ohio
Saved by Screening?
I was disturbed by the negative perspective on prostate screening in "To Screen-or Not?" [April 23]. I am a survivor of prostate cancer. My brother was not because of a lack of screening, and his cancer had spread to his lymph nodes. I have never encountered a urologist who recommended against screening and was struck by the disparity between the tone of the article and the endorsement of prostate screening cited by Bernadine Healy in her column immediately following in the same issue ["The Case for Screening"]. Ignorance is not bliss but rather, informed decision making depends on having appropriate information, particularly when the cost is reasonable, as is the case with prostate screening.
IRVING T. WAALAND
Mission Viejo, Calif.
While it may be true that 11 percent of mammograms result in false positives, it is also true that up to20 percent of mammograms result in false negatives. Which is worse? Because my mammograms had been normal, doctors thought I had a fibrocystic lump. Then I was diagnosed with lymph node positive breast cancer. The bottom line is get screened. This will save lives, maybe yours.
BARBARA TIPPINS
Temecula, Calif.
I am a firm believer in screening scans. In 2005, I had a scan that showed abnormalities in my right kidney. This led to a CT scan, a PET scan, and surgery. I had both papillary and clear cell cancer in my kidney. Both were stage one but graded aggressive. I had no symptoms of kidney cancer. My family doctor at Johns Hopkins said the medical community is divided about the value of screenings. I'm not.
DENNIS BURDICK
Bel Air, Md.
I applaud "To Screen-or Not?" Cancer detection and care are big business and not always beneficial to the patient or the patient's family. We need to accept when there is no more treatment or no good treatment for a cancer. Who would choose quantity of life over quality of life in their last years? Our job in medicine is to do no harm. The general public needs to be aware of the accepted knowns as well as the uncertainties of medicine. Ignorance can harm. Fear is expensive. Our national emphasis needs to be on healthy living and outlook, being happy, exercising, and wise decision making.
LYNNE E. MILLER, M.D.
Brewster, N.Y.
Corrections:
--"To Screen-or Not?" [April 23] misidentified neuroblastoma. It is in fact a malignant tumor of the sympathetic nervous system that frequently occurs in the abdomen and is the most common solid tumor in children after brain cancer.
-- A graphic accompanying "Toward a Safer Campus" [April 30] should have located the University of Arizona College of Nursing in Tucson.
--"Road Warriors" [May 7] commuter Kathy Kniss's average driving speed from home in Long Beach to an office in Culver City, Calif., is about 20 miles per hour.
This story appears in the May 14, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.