More on coffee -- a topic of panel discussion at the recent Experimental Biology 2007 meeting in Washington, DC, and subject of nearly 400 studies investigating consumption and cancer risk.

Think about this:

No one claims coffee is the new health food. And non-coffee drinkers are not encouraged to drink the beverage for their health. Yet the beverage is certainly losing some of its negative health image.

But is it enough?

Some say coffee protects against colon, rectal, and liver cancers (diabetes too). These same people recognize it also can increase the risk of leukemia and stomach cancer. Those at risk, like pregnant women and children, should limit their consumption.

Like many connections between cancer and diet, there just isn't enough research to tell a whole story. We can only take what's available and make our own educated decisions about our own individual lives.

What decision will you make about coffee?

The skin cancer we so desperately try to avoid may be caused, in part, by the very thing we use to prevent the disease -- sunscreen.

Scientists at the University of California report in the journal Free Radical Biology & Medicine that some of the chemicals found in sunscreen products can become cancer-causing agents once they are absorbed into the skin.
And perhaps this is why more and more people are developing skin cancer, despite the increasing use of sun lotions.

"Sunscreens may be doing more harm than good," says lead researcher Dr. Kerry Hanson.

May is the important word here. Sunscreens may contribute in some way to the incidence of skin cancer. But the jury is still out. And experts are not sure right now how significant this research will be in the long run.

He an unlikely breast cancer survivor -- because he is a man. But still he developed the disease that roughly 1,700 men will contract this year. And while that statistics pertaining to women and men with breast cancer differ -- women are 100 times more likely to get the disease -- the biology of the disease is exactly the same. Under the microscope, breast cancer is breast cancer. It does not behave any differently in female and male bodies. And detection, treatment, and survival rates are nearly identical for both sexes.

Bob Riter, 49, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996. Now in remission, he works as the associate director of the Ithaca Breast Cancer Alliance in New York where he speaks out and educates the public about this widespread disease. He believes his personal story, with its different twist, prompts people to really listen.

Riter's audiences learn that breast cancer in men usually presents itself as a lump in the chest, dimpling of the skin, or changes in the nipple. Doctors can perform breast exams, mammography, and biopsy to investigate the possibility of the cancer that typically strikes men between the ages of 60 and 70. Treatment includes mastectomy to remove the tumor and surrounding lymph nodes, chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy.

It was the presence of blood coming from his nipple that sent Riter to his doctor -- and then to a surgeon who declared a diagnosis of breast cancer. Riter is somewhat of an exception because he reported to his doctor immediately. Most men do not. Many do not even realize they are at risk of breast cancer so they ignore symptoms. They also may go underground with their suspicions of breast cancer because of embarrassment. Both can lead to diagnoses of more advanced diseases.

Riter is doing his part to enlighten both men and women that men are not immune to breast cancer, that they should be active in monitoring their breast health. "I really like to go to national breast cancer meetings," he says, "because a lot of people know that men get breast cancer in theory, but until you have a face to associate with it, it's fairly abstract. And so I'm sort of that face."

A chemical found in hard plastics -- such as CD cases, baby bottles, food-storage containers, and even electronics parts -- has been loosely linked to incidences of breast cancer. Popular opinion cautions that if we were not worried about this news yesterday, we should not be worried about it today -- because studies are preliminary and nothing is definitive at this point. But there are definitely two sides to the debate over how harmful these hard plastics may be.

The chemical in question -- a pseudo-estrogen called bisphenol-A (BPA) -- appears to be absorbed by breast tumor cells, according to a new study published in the August 28 issue of Chemistry & Biology. Previous studies have linked small exposures of BPA to prostate abnormalities in mice that suggest a link between the plastic chemical and human prostate cancer. Some studies even theorize that embryonic and fetal exposure might influence mental retardation and birth defects. And because this pseudo-estrogen is a synthetic material that in human cells can trigger estrogenic effects, breast cancer now comes up as a disease that may result from this questionable chemical.

Critics say that average levels of the chemical found in urine is infinitesimally small -- about one part per billion. Some say the results of this research come from in-vitro studies that one expert says can never fully explain human disease. Yet the real crux of the matter, according to another expert, is that we are surrounded by all sorts of chemicals that are pseudo-estrogenic -- not just BPA -- and it's the cumulative effects that we do need to worry about.

Norman Cousins, in Anatomy of an Illness, is said to have started the mind-body medicine phenomenon that led to much of the research proving laughter is good medicine. From a biological standpoint, laughter releases feel good hormones. Feel good hormones can lead to physical healing. In addition, researchers proved that simply holding a pencil between your teeth forced the muscles in your face into the same position a smile would, and this was enough to release the same beneficial hormones. So far, I realize I am probably preaching to the choir.

There is more, and this is new. Loma Linda University in California researchers completed a study that shows just the anticipation of a humorous experience can trigger the activation of feel good hormones. According to Professor Lee Berk, people who are aware they are about to watch their favorite funny video had 27 percent more beta endorphins and 87 percent more human growth hormone, HGH, than people who are told they will be reading magazines for an hour. Beta endorphins provide natural pain relief. HGH is involved in growth, development and cell maintenance, and there is research to suggest it plays a role in maintaining a healthy immune system. Berk poetically calls the anticipation of laughter the biology of hope.