Last Tuesday night, I watched Greta Van Susteren of Fox News' On The Record as she interviewed Brittany Lietz, Miss Maryland 2006. Greta asked Brittany what her Miss Maryland job entails. Brittany told Greta her full-time job is to represent her platform -- skin cancer.

Brittany didn't choose just any topic for her platform. She chose one that is entirely personal.

Skin cancer has left more than 20 scars on Brittany's body. One, on her back, marks the site where a stage two melanoma was removed when she was just 19 years old. It presented as a mole, a little smaller than a nickel, she says. In all likelihood, the cancer was caused by two years of tanning bed use. Brittany says she probably tanned every day for two years. Her pursuit of bronzed skin began when she was 17 and wanted a tan for her prom. It ended after doctors told her she had cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has something important to say about the sugar substitute aspartame.

Think about this:

Italian researchers concluded in 2005 that aspartame causes cancer. But Laura Tarantino of the FDA Office of Food Additive Safety concludes after a review of the study data that the low-calorie sweetener is not a carcinogen.

A similar review by the FDA's European counterpart agrees. There is no evidence this substance, used for 25 years to sweeten soda, gum, dairy products, and some medications, causes cancer.

Italian researchers say they will release their latest aspartame study results on Monday.

I had no idea my February 10 post Some children's bath products linked to cancer would spark such great debate. At the very moment I write, the post has received more than 64,000 hits and 70 comments.

I must admit when the comments started rolling in, I was a bit nervous. Even though I merely reported the facts on this topic, had no claim to any of the information, and didn't even share my opinion on the matter, the highly charged words written by so many well-meaning readers made me feel a bit like I was caught in the middle, like I started an argument and needed to jump back in, sort things out, and create harmony among those responding to my words.

But then I realized debate is not such a bad thing. It sheds light on all sorts of valid viewpoints. It educates. It raises awareness. And that's what cancer causes are all about.

Having read all the comments that now are officially assigned to this one post, I am so much more enlightened than when I summarized the story I came across revealing that some bath products contain a bit too much of a chemical called 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is already known to cause cancer in animals.

All I really knew at the time I wrote the post is that the FDA has no regulation over this chemical and that cosmetic companies must monitor themselves. Some don't do such a good job, and herein lies the debate.

Some readers say big deal, what's the harm really in a little extra dash of chemical in a whole tub of water. Perhaps if our children soaked all day for many days in this chemical, cancer might strike. But a quick bath with a tiny trace of 1,4-dioxane is not likely to do any harm. One reader wrote that we shouldn't stress so much about headlines that scare us into believing everything causes cancer, that we'll probably live a whole lot longer just living our lives free of constant worry.

Another camp of readers say a little bit of something bad is still too much. Over the course of a lifetime, how do we know our children won't pay for our mistaken belief that this hype is just -- hype. Some cancer surviving readers wonder if their cancer was caused by their plentiful childhood bubble baths. And some go to great lengths to find natural, organic, chemical-free products, whatever the financial cost.

A few consultants for these natural products left their own comments, claiming to help those consumed with anxiety. Others scolded these business people for capitalizing on the fears of others with products that have not been proved any safer.

There are advocates of moderation who wrote. And individuals seeking more information. And people who located resources for others to investigate.

There is indeed a rich commentary on the link between bath products and cancer that follows one short post I wrote late one night, after my own children were bathed -- with Dove soap and generic shampoo -- and put to bed. And I am indeed happy to know my small contribution on the topic has generated such a powerful windfall of thought and concern.

In the January issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, findings were published that says calcium seems to protect high-risk people from developing polyps in the colon. Polyps are growths in the colon and some can become cancerous over time.

Patients, who had a history of benign polyps, either took 1,200 milligrams of calcium in supplement form or received a placebo daily for four years. In this study it showed that calcium use was associated with a 17 percent lower risk for polyp recurrence.

"It really does look like calcium interferes with carcinogenesis in the large bowel" researcher John A. Baron, MD, tells WebMD. "The fact that this reduction in risk persisted for years after people stopped taking calcium is amazing".

Baron also stated that it is still not clear if the benefits outweigh the risk since some studies have linked calcium treatment with an increase in prostate cancer risk.

On the flip side a University of Arizona epidemiology professor Maria Elena, PhD, worries that the findings will make people think that all they need to do to protect themselves from colorectal cancer is to increase their calcium intake, which in men high doses can be dangerous.

The best way to prevent colon cancer is to get a colonoscopy when you turn fifty and make sure you have follow-ups. That is not as easy as popping a pill but its true.

The American Cancer Society recommends that adults aged 19 to 50 take in 1,000 milligrams per day of calcium and that those over 50 get 1,200 milligrams. The guidelines stress that the calcium should come primarily from food sources and not supplements.

It's sometimes a bit disconcerting when researchers seems to be at war. First you will come across information that suggests one thing, only to then come across information somewhere else saying the exact opposite. Which of the two (or two hundred, depending upon on the amount of research and number of different conclusions) do you believe? I wish I knew, but I don't. What I do know, however, is that I just came across yet another example of this very problem.

Cooking with nonstick pans -- cancer causing? Well, according to research that I came across a while back, it seemed clear as though it was. That study pointed to perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOAs) as being the component found in Teflon pans that has been linked to certain forms of cancer. But just yesterday I happened to read a statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest: Studies do not show any evidence of Teflon-based PFOAs seeping into the foods we eat or the air we breath.

Okay -- I'm already unsure who to believe. And just then, I found another research contradiction --

Microwaving food in plastic wrap releases carcinogenic dioxins. I mean, that's what I read before. Is that the truth? I mean, I remember even getting an email from a friend, warning about the dangers of cooking plastic wrapped food in the microwave. But, a few days ago I found a statement made by a professor from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: "Dioxins are not present in plastics used for microwavable food containers or plastic wrap." And, I found information to support these findings through a number of other sources. Um, okay. So now what do I do?

The best solution -- as best I can tell, anyway -- would be to err on the side of caution and not use Teflon pans or plastic wrap when nuking food. The solution to the bigger problem, and that being the welter of conflicting academic research, will clearly be a much more difficult problem to solve.

I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of thirty one. I had been taking oral contraceptives for over thirteen years. I was not the type of person that constantly questioned how I got breast cancer or tried to figure out 'why me?' I knew that there were so many factors that could have contributed to me getting breast cancer. Why try and figure it out anyway?, I'm never going to really know the real reason for certain. I wasn't focused on why I got breast cancer at a young age but wanted to focus on surviving the disease. I guess I'm more of the kind of individual who thinks 'why not me'? I know that cancer can happen to anyone, at any age.

Over the years since I have been diagnosed I have read that oral contraceptives do not cause an increased risk of breast cancer, and I have read other articles that suggest they do increase the risk.

This week I read an article that stated oral contraceptive use is a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer, especially in women who use them prior to having a child. The analysis builds on many studies with similar findings, but even as the findings stack up many women are unaware of the risks.

The study noted that 21 out of 23 retrospective studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women who took oral contraceptives prior to pregnancy. It also showed that those women experienced an increased risk of developing breast cancer by 44 percent. The World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as a class one carcinogen, which means there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

Physicians need to talk to their patients about the risks of oral contraceptives. I do not remember ever having any conversations about increased risk of breast cancer when given the pill. I might have still decided to take the pill, but at least I would have been aware of the risk. It might also be beneficially for young women taking oral contraceptives to have earlier screening for breast cancer.

I have never completely cut a certain food from my diet just because of speculation that it may cause cancer. Because I eat most everything in moderation, I have felt that anything I am ingesting is too small an amount to make any real difference. I have heard recommendations about nixing preserved foods and anything treated with hormones and refined sugar and while I try to eat a balanced, healthy diet -- with a bit of sweet stuff thrown in -- I do sometimes indulge my cravings for foods that are not very healthy. Like chips -- which writer Robert L. Wolke says he is definitely eliminating from his diet.

The chemical acrylamide -- a probable carcinogen -- has been found in fried starchy foods, especially potato chips and French fries. This chemical is not a contaminant that somehow appears in our food but is created by chemical reactions that take place during cooking at high temperatures. It's a chemical that has been used in industry and has been known to damage the central nervous system, the immune system, and the reproductive system. And it may cause cancer. Recently, acrylamide was discovered in foods at hundreds of times the .5-parts-per-billion level that is considered safe in drinking water.

Authorities in Germany have already begun enforcing regulations to minimize the amounts of acrylamide in foods. But the United States has been criticized for dragging its feet on this issue. In fact, the National Uniformity for Food Act (H.R. 4167) recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives, with 94 percent of Republicans supporting it and 64 percent of Democrats opposing. It has gone to the Senate, where it was the subject of a hearing on July 27. The act would prohibit states or local governments from setting more stringent limits on toxic substances.

Each of us can still take personal action with regard to the foods we eat -- despite what the government dictates. We can decide what to eat and what not to eat. In the interest of our health. And our future.

For information on acrylamide levels in hundreds of different foods, click here.

Microwaving popcorn produces many compounds known to break down into the suspected carcinogen perfluorooctanoic acid. Research shows that the grease-repelling fluorotelomer chemicals used to treat microwave popcorn bags can get into the popcorn oil. The amount of fluorotelomers in the coating of the bags is high and popcorn bags get very hot and heat up to more than 200 degrees Celsius in just a minute or two. These high temperatures increase the potential for carcinogens to travel to the food from the packaging.

In my household popcorn is the favorite snack for everyone including the dogs and birds. Here is a tip for making the healthiest popcorn snack possible. Coconut oil has been proven to reduce the risks for cancer, especially colon and breast, and is also healthy for the heart by lowering cholesterol. Coconut oil withstands high heat so is great for when you want to fry foods or make your favorite popcorn snack. Remember to buy organic products when available.

Vicki's Healthy Popcorn
1 tablespoon organic coconut oil
1 cup organic popcorn

In a medium sauce pan melt the coconut oil and pour popcorn kernels into the pan and cover. When popcorn starts to pop, shake the pan slightly above the heat of the burner until popcorn stops popping. I usually count to five slowly and if no kernels have popped in five seconds then pull it away from the heat. There will always be unpopped kernels but you don't want to burn the ones that popped. Salt to taste.

Once associated with lung and prostate cancers the heavy metal cadmium may now have links to doubling the risk of breast cancer. Cadmium, a highly persistent heavy metal, has been categorized as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The main exposure sources to cadmium include food, water and tobacco smoke and it is in batteries. Urine sample levels were measured and studies reported that women in the highest quartile of creatinine-adjusted cadmium level had twice the breast cancer risk of those in the lowest quartile.

Once cadmium is in the body it may act like extra estrogen, which can increase risks for some kinds of breast cancer. Over exposure to cadmium in the environment may increase risks for breast, lung, and prostate cancers and also kidney disease. Smoking and breathing second hand smoke also increases the risks of cadmium exposure.

Hours ago, I told you about Wal-Mart's announcement that it will no longer sell children's clothes found to be contaminated with a cancer-causing chemical. The nine brands of children's clothing were sold in stores in China. I then went on to tell you that the public relation spokesperson for Wal-Mart in China declined to state whether or not the same brands of children's clothing had found their way onto U.S. Wal-Mart store shelves. I pondered aloud in the prediction that the public would be hearing from Wal-Mart here in the U.S. regarding this matter -- sooner rather than later.

The UK Foods Standards Agency, FSA, has issued a recall of soft drinks after tests confirmed contamination of benzene, an established and known cancer-causing chemical. Low Calorie Bitter Lemon drink had benzene levels at up to 28 times the country’s limit for drinking water. In addition, Morrison's sugar-free pineapple, Popstar sugar-free lemon & lime, and Hyberry high juice sugar-free black currant squash were recalled.

According to BeverageDaily, the news comes one month after the US Food and Drug Administration, FDA, first revealed to BeverageDaily it had found some drinks containing benzene above the legal limit for water in the US. Both the FDA and the FSA said they believe the benzene was formed through a reaction between two common ingredients –- sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid or vitamin C -- in the drinks. A BeverageDaily investigation earlier this year confirmed that both the FDA and the American soft drinks association have known about this problem for 15 years. No public announcement was ever made, and the re-emergence of the problem suggests a communication breakdown. I would say so. Diet and sugar-free drinks are considered more at risk because sugar has been found to block the reaction leading to the formation of benzene. Beverage Daily has been on this story from the beginning, and has offered information to the public that might not have been known before the recall. It all seems to be coming to light now.

For an indepth reporting account about benzene in soft drinks, go to Beverage Daily. For a related post on this issue, read New cancer concerns about benzene levels in soft drinks.

Okay, you educate yourself for living a cancer prevention healthy life. You try to do all the right things to protect yourself from the scariest diagnosis a person can receive, only to find out, growing older is the greatest cancer-risk factor of all. Nobody has been able to hold back time, we all grow older. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center researchers believe they have discovered in yeast a key to revealing why aging is the single biggest link to cancer in humans.

By tracking the life cycles of multiple yeast strains, they discovered striking similarities between humans and simple baker's yeast with regard to the changes their genes undergo as they age. As nearly 80 percent of cancers are diagnosed after age 55, the researchers are hoping to be able to understand the mechanisms and switches that lead to cancer as we age by studying the life cycles of yeast.

"People should still keep eating their broccoli," stated Dr. Daniel Gottschling, of Fred Hutchinson's Basic Sciences Division. "Our yeast were on a diet equivalent to steak and potatoes. We had the mother cells growing in a very rich, nutrient-dense environment. They were, in essence, pigging out the whole time. We'd like to do similar experiments in which we put the yeast on a 'lean and mean' diet to see if we could delay the switch that triggers the genetic instability," he said. "Yeast promises to be an excellent model system for testing various environmental factors, such as caloric restriction, to get at the mechanisms of cancer initiation."