The ABC building in the Brisbane suburb of Toowong -- subject of a December 2006 post -- has been officially vacated following an investigation that turned up a cancer cluster among female employees.

Over the past 11 years, 10 women from this one building have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Eight of the women worked in the ABC newsroom, and most had been there for more than five years. The breast cancer risk for these women was six times higher than for the general population of women in the area. And while the investigation continues and clues are beginning to connect, the big question -- Why? -- has still not been answered.

It has been determined it is highly unlikely the increase in breast cancer was caused by exposure to radio frequency, low frequency electromagnetic radiation, or chemical contamination. According to experts, had any of these factors been at play, there would have been a rise in cancer among male employees as well as female employees. Therefore, it appears something specific to women has caused this cluster.

Perhaps clues will emerge from an analysis of lifestyle influences -- like smoking, diet, and alcohol and medication use -- and already women have answered questions pertaining to body weight, height, level of physical activity, and reproductive history.

One common theme among women is the use of oral contraceptives for periods varying from two to 18 years. Other interesting findings include the average number of babies born to the women -- 1.6 -- and the breastfeeding practices of the women -- each woman with a child breastfed for an average of 2.3 to 12 months -- and the educational background of the group -- of the 10 women, six have college degrees.

Experts says these are important factors. Early puberty, late menopause, lack of breastfeeding, use of oral contraceptives, and the trend of older mothers having fewer babies all can influence breast cancer risk. And so can level of education. Research shows increased rates of breast cancer in women with white collar jobs -- which is related to socioeconomic status and late childbearing.

Everything is important really -- because as breast cancer rates continue to skyrocket, all possible reasons need to be considered.

One in eight women in Australia will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 85. About 13,261 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. And it is predicted that 14,818 will be diagnosed in 2011.

One or more extra or missing chromosomes can both fuel tumor growth and act to suppress tumor growth, according to University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine researchers.

Heralded as a discovery that solves a 100-year-old genetic puzzle because the hypothesis was first suggested by German biologist Theodor Bover that long ago, researchers sought to determine if the wrong number of chromosomes contributed to tumor growth, or was a consequences of damage in cancerous cells.

While studying aneuploidy -- which is what the occurrence of one or more extra or missing chromosomes is called -- in mouse models, the researchers found that the same genetic mechanism that promotes tumor growth can slow tumor growth.

"This study opens up a whole series of potential therapeutic targets for cancer," said Beth A.A. Weaver, of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and UCSD Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, the study's first author. "By increasing the level of genetic damage, we can kill tumor cells."

The opinion was overwhelming. I was too young for breast cancer. I heard it time and time again before my diagnosis and while it was mildly comforting to know that women in their early 30s -- like me -- rarely develop breast cancer, a sensation deep in my gut told me I was headed for something that defied statistics.

Two years ago -- on November 18 and 19 -- the clues concerning the lump in my breast were stacking up. At the time, the odds were in my favor -- despite the sinking feeling that sat in the pit of my stomach.

November 2004

I went to my OB/GYN on November 18. My doctor felt the lump but was confident it was nothing to worry about. It moved around easily, there was no discharge from my nipple, I did not feel any pain -- all signs that it was benign. But it's routine to get a mammogram for any mass so I got one the next day.

I was the youngest person waiting to get my mammogram, another sign that this lump was nothing serious because it is not common for young women to have breast cancer. Mammograms are not even recommended for women under the age of 40. I am 34. The mammogram films looked okay and the technician told me the doctor would talk to me but that she was not worried about anything. This was true but she did an ultrasound anyway to look further at the lump.

She determined it was not a cyst, which is fairly common, and nothing serious. It could be a fibroma (a common growth that can be removed or left in place without harm) or it could be cancer. She said she wanted me to have the lump removed. She wanted it out and "in a jar," she said. I asked her if it could be cancer and she said it could be.

George W. Bush declared five years ago that no federal funding would be allocated for embryonic stem cell research. He has not changed his mind -- and two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would allow this research. He says that supporting the bill would be supporting the taking of innocent human life in order to find medical benefits for others. For Bush, it crosses a moral boundary. But most Americans support stem cell research and would like to see the Bush White House loosen its restrictions, says Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Until this happens, though, scientists and researchers find themselves in an ethically-charged minefield, operating carefully and responsibly and ethically.

Dr. Peter Dirks -- a neurosurgeon specializing in childhood brain cancer at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children who has been making headlines around the world for isolating brain cancer stem cells two years ago -- is one person weighing in on controversial issue of stem cell research. Dirks does not use embryonic stem cells but instead uses cells from tumors removed during brain surgery that would otherwise be discarded. But he says embryonic stem cell research is critical for his success. It's what has led to the findings that exist today -- and it holds the clues for further discovery. It's a delicate matter, though, regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. Before he harvests stem cells from any patient's brain tumor, for example, Dirks asks parents to sign a three and a half-page consent form. And that's just the beginning.

Federally-funded embryonic stem cell research does not yet have its beginning here in the United States. Maybe the tides will change. Maybe we will see progress. Maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

Quick autopsies -- or rapid organ donation -- may steer scientists in the direction of better diagnosing and treating the most lethal of cancers. Some 33,700 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year -- and 32,300 will die. There is no early detection test for this disease and early symptoms are vague and may be mistaken for health concerns like indigestion. By the time the classic symptoms -- jaundice and itching -- surface, the cancer has typically spread and patients have only months to live. Rapid autopsies have been used before -- for Alzheimer's and prostate cancer -- but this a first in the study of pancreatic cancer and it just may lead to the discovery of what makes this cancer so aggressive and so deadly.