The skin cancer we so desperately try to avoid may be caused, in part, by the very thing we use to prevent the disease -- sunscreen.

Scientists at the University of California report in the journal Free Radical Biology & Medicine that some of the chemicals found in sunscreen products can become cancer-causing agents once they are absorbed into the skin.
And perhaps this is why more and more people are developing skin cancer, despite the increasing use of sun lotions.

"Sunscreens may be doing more harm than good," says lead researcher Dr. Kerry Hanson.

May is the important word here. Sunscreens may contribute in some way to the incidence of skin cancer. But the jury is still out. And experts are not sure right now how significant this research will be in the long run.

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.

Canadian researcher Evangelos Michelakis, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, has stumbled upon something quite remarkable -- a potentially new anti-cancer agent called dichloroacetate, or DCA.

DCA is nothing new -- it's long been used for treatment of rare metabolic disorders -- but using it to fight cancer puts an entirely new spin on the potential of this drug.

"This is one of the most exciting results I've ever had," Michelakis said. "But I can't be overenthusiastic until it works on a human."

Michelakis and his colleagues have successfully used DCA to shrink human lung, breast, and brain tumors in both lab rats and test tubes. And while this type of research may not ordinarily generate a lot of excitement, this specific study is creating a buzz because DCA has been safely used in humans for decades, without adverse side effects.

"One of the big concerns about drugs is that they can harm people but we already know this drug is safe," Michelakis says. "It doesn't even affect normal cells."

One of the fundamental premises of cancer biology is that mitochondria -- the energy producing units of cells -- are permanently damaged by cancer. What DCA does is revive the mitochondrial function, encouraging the death of cancer cells.

The overwhelming hope is that DCA will move right to human testing. But the overwhelming fear is that it will not -- because of economic reasons. There is no longer a patent on DCA so it is not owned by any one company. With little chance of one group making a large profit, there may be no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research.

Sadly, this drug -- that appears to work remarkably well -- may never benefit cancer patients. All because no one stands to make billions of dollars from it.

In an international study involving 500,000 women, researchers concluded for every 2,000 women who had a mammogram, one will have her life prolonged, but ten will undergo unnecessary chemotherapy, radiotherapy and mastectomies. According to Nordic Cochrane Centre researchers, while mammograms do prevent breast cancer death in detecting early-stage breast cancer, it also leads to breast cancer diagnosis in women who would have survived without treatment.

Professor John Toy, medical director of Cancer Research UK, is quoted as saying, "Researchers in the field all agree that breast screening saves lives although they differ in their views about the balance of the pros and cons. Benefits need to be balanced against any disadvantages, as is the case with all medical treatments. Certainly women invited for screening should be made aware of both potential benefits and downsides."

This leaves women in a difficult position. As more women are encouraged to go in for breast cancer screening, more early-stage breast cancer is being discovered. The earlier a cancer is discovered, the better the chances of surviving cancer. That's a given.

However, if they cannot predict how the cancer will behave when found in its earliest stage, or if it will ultimately be life-threatening -- and if, as this study suggests, one woman will be helped while ten women will undergo unnecessary chemotherapy, radiotherapy and mastectomies -- how does a woman decide which treatment or non-treatment path to go down? Chemotherapy, radiotherapy and mastectomies are not simple innocuous treatments.

At this point, I am not certain what we should do with the findings of this study other than be confused, worried and uncertain. What do you think?

It can be a bit overwhelming and scary to read all the side effects on the sheet that the pharmacist gives with the medicine that has been prescribed by your physician. There always seems to be so many side effects that CAN happen. The thing is that most of the side effects are not life threatening and are mild. Some medications however do have severe side effects that if you are not aware of can prove to be deadly. This shouldn't happen of course if you are listening to what your doctor says and are being monitored closely.

It is important to read all the side effect information yourself and know what to look out for. In case something does happen that is abnormal, you will notice it sooner than later, and you can call or see your physician immediately.

In a report issued Tuesday, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that 700,000 people a year, especially the elderly, experience adverse drug events that lead to emergency room visits. In patients 65 or older, one-third of the drug reactions were caused by three medicines: Coumadin, a blood thinner, insulin and Digoxin, a heart medication.

The important thing to remember is to ask about any other drugs you are taking and the interactions with the newly prescribed drug. The report I saw on this issue mentioned that about 30 percent of us are taking around five pills every day.

So ask the nurse at the doctors office to explain the side effects and you can also talk to your pharmacist about the drug. I went and got a prescription filled the other day and the pharmacist asked me if I had any questions about that specific drug. I didn't this time, but I liked that he asked.