Breast implants cleared of danger: Letter

Marie Horan
Thursday 17 October 1996 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Suzanne Moore's claim that breast implants have been found to be dangerous is inaccurate ("Time we reclaimed what is rightfully ours", 11 October)

Numerous studies have been carried out in the United States, notably at the Mayo Clinic, Harvard University Medical School/Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Universities of Calgary and Kansas, which state that there is now compelling evidence that silicone implants expose patients to no demonstrable additional risk to connective tissue disorder or rheumatic disease.

In this country, the Department of Health in 1990 reviewed all available evidence from an independent advisory committee on carcinogenicity and silicone gel implants and concluded that it did not support the suggestion of a link between silicone gel and an increased incidence of cancer.

MARIE HORAN

Director, The Heath Clinic

London NW11

Musical tubes

for low bridges

Sir: Crashing a bus into a bridge ("They huffed and they bussed, but it still wouldn't fall down", 16 October) seems an expensive way to remind us of the expense involved when a tall vehicle attempts to go under a low bridge.

There is a better way. On the approach to the Rotherhithe Tunnel under the Thames they have suspended long tubes. Any driver of a tall vehicle which hits one has a musical reminder of the danger. Why not construct gantries with such suspended tubes before each low bridge?

Dr RONALD LAW

London NW3

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in