While public and private groups, along with researchers and a few drug companies, have been making serious efforts to help smokers quit smoking cigarettes, the tobacco industry has been spiking the level of nicotine in cigarettes, according to a study by the Department of Public Health. Between the years 1998 to 2004, the amount of nicotine in cigarettes has risen by ten percent.

According to Lois Keithly , director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, "We in public health have tried to spend a lot of time figuring out why people don't stop smoking."

Full withdrawal will be felt after the first day of not smoking. But symptoms from nicotine withdrawal are felt within the first 30 minutes after the last cigarette, with smokers reporting cravings within the first hour after the last cigarette. In one hour, smokers reported anger. In three hours of smoking cessation, smokers reported heightened levels of anxiety, sadness and difficulty concentrating. Nicotine is what makes cigarettes so addictive.

The Boston Globe reports when contacted, representatives of the three major tobacco makers in the US declined to comment on the study and would not answer questions about the nicotine content of their products.

Stephen Daniells, a journalist and scientist, has worked both sides of the fence, and as such, has as qualified a voice as any in addressing the controversial debate that rages between science and the media. Scurrilous accusations of journalistic conspiracy are made by scientists when it comes to the sensationalism media employs when reporting scientific research and medical news -- and the journalists equally complain that scientists use the same tactics when they pull out the most attention-getting part of a study while leaving out the better but less interesting facts buried deep within the research findings.

Both sides seem to be exploiting the other by manipulative means. According to Daniells, currently a food science reporter with a PhD in Chemistry from Queen's University Belfast who has worked in research in the Netherlands and France, suggests that all the shaming and blaming needs to stop. The relationship between journalist and scientist must be mended and developed amicably if science is to get a fair deal in the press. Ultimately, where this all leads is to consumers being presented with balanced and accurate science and medical news coverage. Daniells writes an excellent commentary with great examples to support his observations and conclusions.

We have all heard the theory that a cure for cancer has already been found but it is being concealed by the cancer community who stands to lose money if the status quo shifts from treatment to cure. Most of us have spent at least a few moments contemplating the validity of this allegation. Cancer is big business, and as is the case in all big business, decisions are often made with the bottom line of profit in mind. However, the Daily Record ran a feature about Sue McLaren, a young scientist who accepted a research position with the Leukemia Research Fund to study myeloma -- a blood cancer -- that might put into perspective why the conspiracy theory doesn't have legs.

At the time of her appointment to the job, McLaren admits she knew little about myeloma. A few months into researching this cancer, her father was diagnosed with myeloma. For McLaren, what was an academic pursuit became a personal one, as she raced to find a cure for the cancer that was now killing her father. Ultimately, time was not on her side, and her father lost his life to myeloma. It is a touching story, and you can read the feature It was too late to save her beloved father here. I think McLaren's story illustrates why a cure for cancer could not be concealed for long -- if there was one already in existence. The big business of cancer and the cancer community is made up of people, and people get cancer. Or their loved ones get cancer. You are not going to agree to be part of a conspiracy that shoves you into a position of watching someone you love die from a disease -- if there is a cure. 

Both the Las Vegas Sun and ABC News Channel 3 in Nevada are running reports that the Nevada Cancer Institute will be opening offices in Elko and Fallon this week to help provide outreach, education and support to the projected 11,000 Nevadans who will be diagnosed with cancer this year. According to the reporting, Susan Robinson, Nevada Cancer Institute associate director of outreach and education, said the offices will help make sure cancer patients and their families have access to the latest in cancer information, prevention, education, detection and treatment options. End of story.

Sounds nice that they are doing this for the communities of Elko and Fallon, doesn't it? However, the reporters on this story have either missed the real story of the story, or they are simply not reporting the most significant part of the story. Fallon is considered one of the more famous cancer clusters. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, classifies a location as a cancer cluster when a greater-than-expected number of cancer cases occur within a group of people in a geographic area over a period of time. So, are they setting up shop to service the higher-than-normal incidence of cancer cases experienced in a cancer cluster -- or are they there to collect data on cancer patients living in a cancer cluster -- or are they there to put out fires -- or all three. I know -- how cynical of me. Maybe it's nothing at all. But why, in the reporting of this news story, was the story left out? Trust me, I will be paying attention. My family once lived in Fallon.