Roger Ebert, one of America's best known film critics, has not been able to speak since he had emergency cancer surgery on July 1 to repair a burst blood vessel near the site of his June 16 surgery to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland. But he can still give a thumbs up or thumbs down as he reviews movies on his Web site.

Starting today, clips from Ebert & Roeper and Ebert's prior episodes of his movie review TV show will be posted here. It just may be the largest collection ever of video-based online movie reviews -- 5,000 movie reviews spanning the past 20 years will be featured.

Ebert is not quite sure when he might return to television as he awaits another surgery to restore his voice. In the meantime, he screens as many as three films a day. He watches DVDs at night to catch up on those he missed, and he's writing more than ever, he says.

Movie critic Roger Ebert expects to be back to work at his annual festival for overlooked movies this week. It will be his first public appearance since having cancer surgery last summer -- and while some say his appearance may attract the gossip papers, Ebert says, "So what?"

Ebert, 64, will be seen at the ninth annual Overlooked Film Festival, beginning today at the University of Urbana-Champaign, wearing a gauze bandage around his neck. And his mouth will be seen to droop, he says.

This is all because of Ebert's tracheostomy -- it opens an airway through an incision in his windpipe, rendering him speechless -- that resulted from his June 16 surgery to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland and a subsequent July 1 surgery to repair a burst blood vessel close to the same site.

On Tuesday, Ebert shared that his cancer began in his salivary gland but then spread to his lower right jaw. As a result, part of his mandible was removed and two surgeries were necessary to reconstruct the area. Both surgeries were unsuccessful, however, and led to unanticipated bleeding.

"The doctors now plan an approach that does not involve the risk of unplanned bleeding," Ebert, a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, says. "If all goes well, my speech will be restored."

This cancer survivor, who says we spend too much time hiding illness and is proud to be back in the spotlight, has also co-hosted the Ebert & Roeper television show with fellow Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper since 2000. Film critics and filmmakers have been filling in for Ebert during his recovery.

Cancer cells sometimes secrete specialized proteins into the bloodstream that serve as indicators of tumor growth. These tumor markers are often distinctly associated with a particular type of cancer. Like prostate cancer.

The most well-known tumor marker today is the PSA -- the prostate-specific antigen. PSA is a highly specific protein that is secreted only by cells of the prostate gland. It is one of the most widely used -- and the only widely accepted -- screening test for cancer.

There's also the tumor marker CA-125, used in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and in the monitoring of response to treatment for the same disease. There's CEA for colon cancer, CA-19-9 for pancreatic cancer, AFP for liver and testicular cancer, beta-HCG for testicular cancer, and CA 15-3 for breast cancer. And research is under way on newer, more useful tumor markers. This is a good thing -- because some tumor markers are not specific enough or sensitive enough to accurately predict tumor growth.

This is why my oncologist does not recommend I enter the world of tumor markers, despite my status as a breast cancer survivor. He suggests I rely simply on how I feel for monitoring my chances for cancer recurrence. If I experience any worrisome symptoms, he will be the first to wage an all-out assessment of my health. But without symptoms, tumor markers are not likely to help me at all.

A peek at my breast cancer tumor markers would likely be hazy, inconclusive, and not all that helpful. Examination of tumor markers can lead to false positives. It can lead to expensive and often unnecessary follow-up testing. It can lead to worry and panic and even alarm if the numbers are not in the hoped-for range.

Although an abnormal tumor marker level may suggest cancer, this alone is typically not enough to diagnose the disease. Measurements of tumor markers are usually combined with other tests, such as a biopsy, to confirm cancer. So what would I do with an abnormal number and nothing suspicious to biopsy? I would worry. I would panic. Perhaps unnecessarily.

My doctor suggests I refrain from a wild cancer chase. And I am happy with his suggestion. Between my own awareness, follow-up oncology appointments, mammograms, annual OB/GYN check-ups, and more, I am confident any health issues that come my way will be detected early -- and can be resolved in good time. I have no need for confusing tumor marker details. Unless they are conclusively recommended, I will survive without them. More important, I will survive without worry.

Doctors start to recommend regular mammograms for women when they reach 40 but evidence now shows that a woman's risk for breast cancer may be determined far earlier in life. Cellular changes in breast tissue that are just beginning to develop in childhood can lead to cancer.

During early childhood, breast tissue is mostly dormant until the pituitary gland and ovaries produce enough hormones, including estrogen, to accelerate breast growth. These changes take place when a girl starts menstruating and continues for several years. During this period rapid cell growth appears to be a particularly vulnerable time for the breast and may be the time when the first cellular changes that can lead to breast cancer are most likely to occur.

Prostate cancer has been on the rise for the last thirty years. A small but growing group of scientists are beginning to prove with research what environmentalists and activists in the cancer community have been saying for some time -- the link between environmental toxins that mimic estrogens in the body and reproductive cancer is not coincidental. University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Cincinnati researchers have just completed a study that shows a direct link between the chemical, bisphenol A or BPA -- that leaks from plastic products we use in daily life -- to the development of prostate cancer in later life.

According to the researchers, these findings could have major implications for human disease, and could, at least in part, explain why the prostate cancer rate has surged. Used for about half a century, BPA is a key component in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic and is one of the world's most widely used industrial chemicals. Unlike carcinogenic chemicals that can cause profound damage to DNA and trigger cancer, BPA seems to cause subtle changes that are passed from one generation to the next generation. It all starts in the womb. To read more, go here.

About ten years ago, Oregon State University researchers took an interest in hops. In particular, the flavonoid compound xanthohumol found in hops. Although xanthohumol was first discovered almost 100 years ago, no one was aware of the possible health benefits of the compound. In the last ten years, Fred Stevens, assistant professor of medicinal chemistry in OSU's College of Pharmacy, as well as a Linus Pauling Institute researcher -- with a team of researchers -- have been able to determine that hops might be effective in the prevention of cancer. In the latest published research paper, the researchers are stating that beer looks promising in prostate cancer prevention and prevention of prostate enlargement. Before you get excited at the prospect that drinking beer is cancer prevention, according to the research, you would need to drink more than 17 beers to consume the same amount used in the study. Or you could travel to Germany.

There is a microbrewed beer manufactured and distributed in Germany that is xanthohumol-enhanced, and contains ten times the normal amount of the compound found in regular beer. The beer is not available outside of Germany. Researchers think that a drug containing a highly concentrated amount of xanthohumol might be an effective treatment for cancers in the future.