Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine printed the results of a new, comprehensive study showing no increased risk of breast cancer for women who take birth control pills. The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, questioned 9,200 women, half of whom were recently diagnosed with breast cancer, about their health and use of the pill and other hormones. One-third of the women in the study were black women, making this study one of the few that sought active participation of minority women. The study found that women between the ages of 35 and 64 are at no greater risk from developing breast cancer if they take the pill, regardless of the age when they start or the dose they take, even if they have a family history of breast cancer. This should put an end to the more ridiculous anti-birth control arguments, particularly the myth that teenage girls who take the pill are at greater risk for cancer later in life. It should also ease the minds of millions of women who have taken the pill throughout their lives--some 80 percent of American women born since 1945. [Source: "Study says pill doesn't raise cancer risk," Carol Smith, Seattle P-I, 6/27/02, A1.]

In the same vein, some doctors are now supporting women who opt to end their monthly periods with the use of birth control pills. Since the pill's invention, a small minority of women have always opted to take the pill non-stop in order avoid menstruation--perhaps they have truly awful periods or they work or live in a situation that makes menstruation a terrible burden. Or perhaps they simply want to do without the mess and trouble. In the past, these women have been scolded by their doctors and told that they are doing serious damage to their reproductive health, that they need to let their bodies return to a natural state, or that they're jeopardizing their ability to have children. But medical historians have pointed out that modern women have more periods than their foremothers--an average of 400 in their lifetimes, while women in more primitive societies, who bear more children and nurse for long periods of time, may have an average of less than 150 in their lifetimes. Some researchers are now asserting that having fewer periods may protect a woman's body from disease, particularly endometriosis and ovarian cancer; the theory is that, whenever a follicle bursts to release an egg from a woman's ovary, her body has to repair the damage. As cells divide, there's more risk of a genetic duplication error that can lead to cancer. Doctors have hesitated to recommend menstrual suppression in the past, however, because ovarian cancer risk is small compared to the incidence of breast cancer. The new study from the CDC and the NICHHD makes that worry a non-issue.

When given the above information, a huge number of women express glee over the idea of stopping their periods. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently reported that, of 300 women given the option, a whopping 90% chose to take the pill continuously to stop their menstruation! And there's more than one way to stop your periods. The most common method is to use a monophasic pill, which releases the same amount of hormone every day over 21 days. When you reach the 22nd day, instead of taking the inert pills or stopping the pill altogether for 7 days, simply open a new package and begin taking the hormone again. (Always consult your doctor first.) Note: tri-phasic pills should not be used, as they vary in hormones released over the 21-day cycle. Other methods include hormone shots or a hormone-releasing intrauterine device. For more information, you can visit a website hosted by Leslie Miller, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington: www.noperiod.com. [Source: "Doctors Push New Efforts to Eliminate Women's Periods," Tara Parker-Pope, Wall Street Journal, 6/25/02, D1.]--Maria Tomchick

Our ever-subservient local dailies haven't dwelt on it, but contract negotiations have begun between the International Association of Machinists and Boeing, and the machinists are boiling mad. That's because Boeing, despite the worshipful treatment it gets from our local media and civic elites, has been screwing its workers bigtime. Two of the union's last four contract negotiations escalated into strikes. A strike was averted in the last negotiations, in 1999, because Boeing offered what the union thought was an "ironclad" protection against layoffs resulting from outsourcing (that is, shifting jobs to other divisions or subcontractors in non-union states or Third World countries.)

Since 1999, the union has lost an astonishing 54.1% of its members--from 42,000 in the Puget Sound area in 1999 to only 19,500 today. Almost all of those jobs didn't disappear--they moved, to places that were either better geographic locations or simply had much cheaper non-union wages. Non-unionized workers--those lacking the "protection" afforded union members in 1999--have fared at least as badly. Boeing has made a habit of taking the enormous amount of corporate welfare it suchs out of our tax dollars--for develop, manufacturing, promotion, and sales, not to mention having the Pentagon as a leading customer--and then expressing its thanks by shipping its jobs overseas, too, and pocketing the difference in wages. What a great country. Look for another strike, ended only when Boeing makes more bullshit "guarantees." --G.P.

Boeing's not the only big outfit that has decided the tenor of the times allows it to treat its workers like disposable commodities. Negoations on the waterfront with Port of Seattle workers are particularly contentious, as are the contract talks between staff members and the University of Washington-operated Harborview Medical Center. The tenor of offers and negotiating from Harborview's management has been so strikingly vicious that it even prompted an unusual letter in May--again, roundly ignored by local media--from the normally pro-management County Executive Ron Sims, asking the Harborview execs to tone it down and start treating its workers with something approaching a modicum of respect.

Along with past Port hassles and the recent Seattle School District decision to sack its bus union drivers, it's a reminder that after a decade of Al Gore-stylle "reinventing government" to act like a private business, a lot of bureaucrats--especially the top execs hired away from the private sector--consider union-busting part of good management technique, and don't consider the public good as any more relevant to their decisions than it would be in some Fortune 500 company.--G.P.

Unsolicited plug time: a lot of zines come thru our mailbox, but probably the most fun (and most creatively packaged) one to show up in a while is a new edition now out of the Radical Cheerleader Handbook Beyond the spirit of the packaging and the sheer exuberance of the whole DIY concept of radical cheerleading, the content's pretty cool, too: great artwork and line drawings, and 50 pages of reasons why, regardless of the issue, you never, ever have an excuse for falling back on those same old stupid, boring, monotonous chants at your next demo. And remarkably, for a zine with hand-written copy and lots of artwork, the whole thing's still pretty legible, too. "$2 if you got it, $0 if you don't" from PO Box 961, Lake Worth, FL 33460.--G.P.

The abuve blurb was gonna go this issue into our new column of short reviews, Chew Swallow Digest. But we didn't get any other submissions for that feature this issue, so it's here instead. If you've read or seen or listened to something really cool (or awful) lately, and wanna regurgitate your thoughts (in less than 200 words per blurb, please), sent it along! Chew Swallow Digest, ETS!, PO Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or ets@scn.org. For that matter, our monthly ETS! editorial/business meeting is next Wednesday (July 10--see calendar on the back page), and it's really easy to get involved--ETS! really is a volunteer outfit, with no paid staff (unless you count token fees for layout). Every contributor that appears here, along with all the other distributors and fundraisers and volunteers or various stripes that have kept us afloat for six years, got involved cuz we just decided to do it, and so we started to do it. Simple as that. Join in! --G.P.

Oh, and sending in donations counts as volunteering, too! --G.P.

When the Washington State Patrol began its random searches of ferry riders, they insisted that the searches were voluntary. But if a rider refused a search, the State Patrol informed the captain of the ferry boat, who then refused to let the rider on the boat. Random, involuntary searches are unconstitutional and have been struck down in various courts for over two centuries. When the State Legislature's Transportation Committee called the State Patrol on the carpet and forced them to end the searches, the State Patrol whined that the Coast Guard had forced them into it. Since when has the Coast Guard forced anyone into anything, unless it's the captain of a boat caught offshore with a big drug haul? The State Patrol is trying to cover its ass. The legislators who grilled State Patrol Chief Ronald Serpas last week were incensed that the State Patrol had asked them for an extra $1.8 million this year for "security measures," but had not told them that it would include illegal searches. Moreover, the public outcry was incredible--folks from the left, right, and center all complained to the ACLU, who then referred them to Gov. Locke, Ronald Serpas, and other state officials. Yes, your complaints can make a difference.--MT