Colossus

🔍

question:Write an article based on this "Three peers and an MP have been accused of agreeing to do parliamentary work for payment after undercover reporters for the Sunday Times, BBC Panorama and the Daily Telegraph posed as lobbyists." Article:

answer:Title: "When People in Charge Make Bad Choices: A Simple Explanation" Once upon a time, there were some important people in a faraway land called the United Kingdom. These people had big jobs that involved helping to make decisions and rules for everyone in the country. They were called MPs and peers. MPs are like the people you see on a school council, and peers are a bit like your friends' parents who are also on that council. One day, some sneaky people who pretended to work for a different group of important people, called lobbyists, came up with a plan. Lobbyists are like people who try to convince your teacher that one idea is better than another. The sneaky people wanted to find out if the important MPs and peers would break the rules by doing work for them and getting paid for it. This is not allowed because their job is to make decisions that are fair for everybody, and getting paid by someone might make them choose something that is only good for the person who pays them. So, the sneaky people, who were actually undercover reporters from the newspapers and a television show, dressed up like lobbyists and asked the important MPs and peers if they would agree to do work for them in exchange for money. Sadly, three peers and one MP said yes! They didn't know they were being tricked and that the sneaky people were recording everything that happened. When the newspapers and the television show told everyone what had happened, a lot of people got very upset. They didn't like that these important people were ready to break the rules. Now, those MPs and peers might get punished for making a bad choice, and they might not be allowed to be in charge of making important decisions anymore. It's always important to remember that everybody, even people in charge, can make bad choices. But it's also important to learn from our mistakes and try to do better next time. We should always be honest and think about how our choices can affect others, especially when we have important jobs that affect lots of people.

question:british foreign office minister baroness symons will make her first visit to the caribbean next week since her appointment as minister for overseas territories . Write a brief summary in a sentence or less

answer:British Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons is set to make her inaugural visit to the Caribbean next week in her capacity as Minister for Overseas Territories.

question:Answer the following question: Ziarat Mowla - Ziarat Mowla (Persian: زيارت مولا‎ also Romanized as Zīārat Mowlá; also known as Khar Bandān and Kharbandavān) is a village in Gurband Rural District in the Central District of Minab County Hormozgan Province Iran. At the 2006 census its population was 269 in 50 families. Given a choice of categories company, educational institution, artist, athlete, office holder, mean of transportation, building, natural place, village, animal, plant, album, film or written work, the text refers to which one? Answer:

answer:village

question:Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought Age 40: The American Cancer Society says women should get annual mammograms beginning at age 40. Ages 50-74: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says women ages 50 to 74 should get screened every other year, and women in their 40s who have a much lower risk of dying from breast cancer should decide for themselves, rather than automatically getting screened. By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY Nearly one year after the publication of controversial breast cancer screening guidelines by a government-appointed expert panel, a new study suggests benefits of mammograms may be more modest than previously estimated. In a nationwide study in Norway, women in their 50s and 60s who got a mammogram every other year reduced their risk of dying from breast cancer by 10%, compared with those who didn't get the exams, according to a study in today's New England Journal of Medicine. That's a much smaller benefit than estimated by even the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which says mammograms reduce breast cancer mortality by 15% to 23%. The task force's recommendations — advising that women may not need to begin screening until age 50 — ignited a fierce debate last November, in the midst of deliberations over health care reform. In the new study, researchers tried to determine whether recent declines in breast cancer mortality were the result of mammograms or better treatments and awareness. Norway's breast screening program includes mammograms as well as innovative treatment teams to coordinate a variety of specialty care. Doctors looked at two groups of women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn't. While deaths from breast cancer fell 28% from 1996 to 2005 among participating women, they also fell 18% for unscreened women. That suggests that mammograms can't get all the credit for the falling death rate, the study says. Instead, mammograms probably cut mortality by only 10%, the difference between the two groups, the study says. Some say the new study helps women have a more realistic understanding of what mammograms offer. For 50-year-old women, mammograms may cut the 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer from 4.4 in 1,000 to 4 in 1,000, says H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School, who wrote an accompanying editorial. Welch notes that most people are unaware of the risk of mammograms: They sometimes detect slow-growing tumors that don't pose a threat. Because doctors can't reliably tell which are life-threatening, however, they tend to treat all of them. Studies suggest that for every life saved by mammograms, five to 15 women may go through unnecessary treatment, he says. Other experts note that the study may underestimate mammogram's benefits. Researchers followed women for an average of only two years, which may not be long enough to notice a big difference in mortality, says Daniel Kopans, a spokesman for the American College of Radiology. It's also possible that some women listed in the unscreened group actually got mammograms on their own, outside of Norway's national program, which could blur the differences between the two groups. "The authors confirm that screenings save lives," Kopans said in a statement. "There is no universal cure in sight. Until one is found, annual screening and early detection, beginning by the age of 40, offer women the best chance for a cure." You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. What are the most important parts of this text?

answer:This article discusses a study in Norway that suggests the benefits of mammograms may be more modest than previously estimated. The study found that women in their 50s and 60s who received a mammogram every other year reduced their risk of dying from breast cancer by 10%, compared with those who did not get the exams. This reduction is smaller than the estimated 15%-23% reduction by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The study aimed to determine whether the decline in breast cancer mortality was due to mammograms or better treatments and awareness. The research compared two groups of women who were similar except for one group receiving mammograms and found that while breast cancer deaths fell 28% from 1996 to 2005 among participating women, they also fell 18% for unscreened women. This suggested that mammograms possibly contributed to a 10% reduction in mortality. However, some experts argue that the study may underestimate mammogram benefits as the research followed women for only two years, and some women listed in the unscreened group may have received mammograms outside of Norway's national program. The article also discusses the potential risks of mammograms, such as detecting slow-growing tumors that may not be life-threatening but often lead to unnecessary treatment. Studies suggest that for every life saved by mammograms, five to 15 women may undergo unnecessary treatment. Despite these concerns, proponents of mammograms maintain that annual screenings and early detection offer women the best chance for a cure in the absence of a universal solution.