On July 23, a milestone in presidential campaign history was delivered when Democratic presidential candidates fielded questions sent in via YouTube, a popular video sharing website where users can upload, view, and share video clips. On September 17, Republican candidates will take part in the second CNN-YouTube debate.

Aired live on CNN, this unusual debate featured 39 serious questions -- about immigration, climate change, the voting system, even cancer.

Thirty-six-year-old Kim of Long Island, who pulls off her wig mid-question, asks in her video clip about the millions of uninsured Americans who don't have access to preventative medical care.

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.

MTV -- the ultimate source of music videos and pop culture -- has been around for 25 years now. And that amount of time makes for a lot of memories.

So in recognition of the entertainment MTV has offered over the years, Indystar.com, Indiana's #1 local media site, takes a walk down memory lane and counts down 25 best MTV memories. It's fitting that many of the memories include actual music -- although some may say MTV is not really about music anymore, with music videos hard to come by -- so Michael Jackson's 1983 14-minute video Thriller makes the list and so does the 1985 performances of Live Aid, a conglomeration of musicians who sang to raise money for famine relief in Ethiopia.

But many memories are not recollections of music videos -- or even musical performances. They are nostalgic remembrances of other media events -- like a kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears during an award show, the running of the popular Beavis and Butthead show and Remote Control game show, peeks into spring break extravaganzas, and roof-raising reality shows like The Real World and The Osbourne's.

And even one socially-conscious piece that aired to raise awareness of testicular cancer. On May 23, 2000, wacky, stunt-pulling comedian Tom Green let viewers into his private world, in an operating room while he underwent surgery to remove a cancerous testicle and several lymph nodes. Green survived the surgery well -- and he is surviving cancer still today -- and his public handling of a serious disease goes down in MTV history as something truly memorable.

Dealing with cancer in private is hard. Dealing with cancer publicly can be even harder. CEO Donna McAleer -- the founding executive and public face of the large, growing health care company Elant -- knows this firsthand. She just recently went public with her breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis after rumors of her demise started circulating. McAleer set the record straight, announcing that she is doing just fine. While her experience has been frightening, she is surviving well -- and she wants the public to know. She has run Elant for 20 years and wants to dispel any myths about its stability. Apple CEO Steve Jobs faced the same public drama in 2004 after surgery for pancreatic cancer and subsequent drops in Apple stock. Jobs recovered -- and so did the stock -- but the speculation that swirled was powerful and potentially damaging. Just as it was that same year when Kraft Foods was criticized for withholding details of its CEO's hospitalization.

There is some debate in the business world about all of this -- about whether or not executive illnesses should be disclosed. For public companies, one opinion is that there is an obligation to respond quickly to the public. In a private company, it's up to the CEO. McAleer's Elant is not a publicly traded company and there is no worry about stock price -- but her decision to reveal her personal health crisis was the right thing to do, she says. "I have an obligation to share this news in how I progress, in order to educate and make sure people aren't frightened by it," she said in reference to the memo she sent to her 700 employees and community groups too.

I'm open and honest about my own cancer experience because I believe it can help others -- and it helps me to talk about it too. So I'm a fan of a forthcoming approach in the workplace. I appreciate that some fear repercussions that might result from such a disclosure. But honesty may be the best policy -- for prevention of rumors and addressing worry and raising awareness too. McAleer seems to agree as she takes this opportunity to speak up, to encourage women to seek mammograms and to follow up on them.

Michael Fumento is an author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues. And he has a lot to say about the Surgeon General's recent announcement that the second-hand smoke debate is over -- that second-hand smoke does in fact kill. Fumento believes that the debate is over means if you have your doubts, then keep them to yourself -- that the topic is not up for discussion any longer. But Fumento states that we should definitely have doubts -- about the effects of second-hand smoke and about what the Surgeon General has to say about it.

How do you measure the ethereal? In an earlier post, I quoted Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, who I believe summed it up best when he stated, "The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion."

It doesn't seem to keep those intent on attempting to measuring the immeasurable and attempting to prove in physical world scientific terms that spirituality can play a powerful role in health and healing. Of course it can. Spirituality is a path to profound healing for those who are spiritual in nature. But it does not exclude healing from those who do not follow a spiritual path. The truest power rests in the power of belief itself on an internal landscape of the mind and body.

The John Templeton Foundation announced it is funding a new study at Michigan State University exploring the role spirituality plays in the recovery from breast cancer. I think that it will not matter the results of the study -- if it is positive it will reaffirm what the spiritual believe to be true and challenged by those who do not put much weight in the spiritual dimension of being. If it does not reveal a significant link between spirituality and healing, then the reverse dismissive rejection of the findings will be made.

Do I believe in the power of spirituality to heal? Yes. Do I believe it gives me an advantage to healing over those who do not share my beliefs? No. There are many paths leading to the same destination. The wisdom would be in acknowledging all paths as real and powerful. If we did that, we wouldn't need a study sure to bring nothing but more controversial debate with little possibility in the blending of hearts and minds between spirituality and science. 

Ontario's and Quebec's province-wide smoking ban in all public places went into effect on Wednesday -- to coincide with World No Tobacco Day. This is what Heather Crowe, a non-smoker who recently passed away from lung cancer, worked so passionately to make happen. As a waitress who worked in smoke-filled restaurants most of her adult life, she felt that second-hand smoke was the cause of her lung cancer. Crowe wanted to insure that no other person be subjected to second-hand smoke and suffer the same fate she did in being diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.

Many approve of the new law banning smoking in all public places, but not the bingo halls that raise money for charity. Ontario's 100 charity bingo halls state the smoking ban will result in the closing of 48 bingo halls over the next year. The Committee to Save Charity Bingo representing the bingo halls indicate that charities will lose $50 million dollars that would normally have been raised during bingo because 70 percent of customers who play at charity bingo halls smoke. They fear the players won't be coming around if they cannot smoke while they play bingo. While it is not in the nature of people to welcome change -- especially when it comes to lifestyle changes -- they do have the enormous capacity to adapt to new situations and circumstances, and in time, I think everyone will become comfortable with the new way. Or at least find alternative ways to make everyone comfortable.

In a universal health system, care is rationed by medical priority when determining where health dollars will be spent and what types of treatment will be covered. In the UK, a debate is taking place between British scientists who are recommending that unproven or disproved complementary therapies not be funded and therapists of complementary medicine who argue that many of the alternative therapies have been proven effective and should be funded for patients who can benefit from such therapies. This has opened up a whole new discussion in defining exactly what alternative or complementary therapies are and what place they have in modern medical practice.

Meanwhile, Prince Charles, a strong advocate of alternative therapies and organic foods, spoke to World Health Assembly members of the World Health Organization about the need to consider making better use of traditional therapies, particularly acupuncture and herbal medicines, to improve health care around the world.

"I believe that the proper mix of proven complementary, traditional and modern remedies, which emphasizes the active participation of the patient, can help to create a powerful healing force in the world,'' Charles said. "This is where orthodox practice can learn from complementary medicine, the West can learn from the East and new from old traditions."

Prince Charles is concerned that if we do not recognize the wisdom and value of the past, much of that knowledge will be lost. Putting aside politics, monarchy and scandal, I am gaining more respect for the Prince of Wales the more I learn about his perspectives concerning health and the environment.

I am not a rocket scientist, but as the saying goes, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure some things out. Common sense can lead to fairly intelligent conclusions. For example, look at diet and cancer prevention. When it comes to cancer prevention, the food we eat will have a positive or negative affect on our health, and can either protect us from the development of some cancers, or promote a higher probability of getting cancer somewhere down the nutrition-deficient trans fat fast food laden road of life. How do I know this when I am not a rocket scientist? With common sense and reason, I took a look at diseases where food is used extensively in the control of the disease.

Diabetes is a disease controlled by diet. Heart disease is controlled by diet, and diet has even been known to reverse heart disease. So, why wouldn't food do the same for cancer? I believe it does, and there is increasing research that supports my conclusion that food can alter the course of cancer. Diabetics cannot be cured of diabetes by diet alone, and heart disease, even when it can be reversed by diet, cannot be cured by food. I don't know that food can cure cancer, and to suggest it can is probably wrong. But it can bring positive outcomes for cancer patients in the same ways it does for people who suffer from other potentially life-threatening diseases -- and provide prevention in the development of some cancers before the disease has a chance to get started. Do you think food can provide cancer prevention benefit? Or do you think it is all a bunch of hooey and it's a good thing I do not design rockets for a living?

While research findings suggest there might be a slight benefit for women including soy in the diet as a measure of breast cancer prevention, there is doubt that soy has any substantial benefit, and might actually cause more harm than good.

"At this point, women should not be taking high-dose soy supplements, especially those who are breast cancer survivors and women at increased risk for the disease," said Bruce Trock at Johns Hopkins' Brady Urological Institute and Kimmel Cancer Center. "We don't have long-term data on the effects of these supplements, and there is some evidence that they could be harmful."

Trock has research to back up his statement. In animal testing, soy products showed an increase in tumor growth. In human studies, they were able to observe changes in breast cell growth that might actually increase risk for breast cancer.

In the 1980's, soy became popular as a cancer prevention food after early laboratory data showed that high doses of compounds within soy, called isoflavones, may block estrogens, promote cell death and have anti-inflammatory qualities. Asian women, who have much lower rates of breast cancer, include tofu and bean curd, both soy foods, in their daily diet, and this was held up as an example of the benefits of soy. But, as Trock points out, "We need to take into account that Asian women are more physically active, drink less alcohol, have children earlier, and their entire diet is different from Western women, all of which decrease their breast cancer risk." The jury is still out on the subject of soy, and from the estrogen-positive breast cancer survivors I know, most are steering clear of soy at this time because there are too many questions still unanswered.

In Medical News Today, is the feature one percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth nearly $500 billion dollars. With the ever-increasing costs of the latest in cancer drug treatments -- and what a life is worth in deciding whether or not to allow access to  drugs for cancer patients needing them -- this is an interesting and valid perspective in calculating costs of disease. According to a new study by economists Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, a one percent reduction in mortality from cancer would be worth nearly $500 billion in social value of improved health and longevity. These estimates in dollars are based on the enjoyment of consumption and time during additional years of life, rather than how much a person earns.

"Since the benefits of cancer research are large, substantially greater research expenditures would be worthwhile," Murphy and Topel wrote. "A war on cancer that would spend an additional $100 billion on research and treatment may be worthwhile even if it had a one-in-five chance of reducing mortality by just one percent."

According to the researchers, from 1970 to 2000, gains in life expectancy added about $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth. While the economists are advocating in favor of additional research dollars, I believe the information from the study applies equally well when arguing if it is economically feasible to treat every cancer patient with drugs that will extend life. So for those who keep their focus on the pragmatic bottom line, and argue we simply cannot afford to treat everyone with expensive life-extending drugs, this is compelling evidence that in the long-run, you are losing money by not spending money now.

Last week, I posted on the power behind the power of prayer regarding a study basically suggesting that prayer does not help people heal, and to make matters worse, prayer seems to inadvertently act with evil-eye power, making those prayed for suffer more difficult recovery than their counterparts who were not prayed for at all. But if prayer can have a negative affect on the health of someone prayed for, then it must have the power to heal too. Yes? Yes. As Nietzsche once pointed out, good and bad cannot, and do not, travel separately, as each is merely a side to a two-sided coin. So if the study is suggesting prayer does not have any power to heal, it cancels out its conclusions by suggesting that prayer does have the power to harm. All this study provides is a reference for those who believe there is nothing beyond life but what we experience in a skin-and-bones existence, much the same as a religious text is used by those to support their take on ultimate truth. You would think we could learn to agree to disagree, because, dare I suggest, each of us is partly right and none of us owns the exclusive rights to reality and truth. But then again, what good is that perspective when it comes to pissing contests or the impassioned discourse that fuels the religious and scientifically political punditry.

In a Slate article, The Deity in the Data by William Saletan, the author asserts that the researchers of the study, many media outlets and clerics are shrugging off the study findings because the findings did not go the way most expected, or wanted. The study "cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups." To that, Saletan says bull. He presents some interesting, and entertaining, perspectives of his own. I do not think anyone is shrugging. As I see it, the power of prayer was not the real focus of the study, but whether or not God can be proven as real. Quite a task, and an unneeded one. Those who believe in the power of their God, believe in the power of their prayers. For those who do not believe, there is nothing to prove, is there? It is my guess that the researchers might not have received the same level of funding by stating the obvious hypothesis.