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.

Celebrities catch our attention. They cause us to pay attention too -- which is likely why the media uses celebrities and prominent people to send messages about all sorts of issues, like breast cancer.

It's not just the real-life survivor celebrity stories -- about Melissa Etheridge and Elizabeth Edwards and Sheryl Crow -- that make headlines and attract ratings. It's also the portrayal of cancer survivors on television that raises awareness about this disease. It's not a new trend -- it started long ago when All in the Family's Edith Bunker (Jean Stapleton) experienced a breast cancer scare, marking one of the first times the issue of breast cancer was discussed openly on TV.

Tough cop Mary Beth Lacey (Tyne Daly) of the TV show Cagney & Lacey traveled a breast cancer journey. Sisters eldest sister Alex (Swoosie Kurtz) was diagnosed with breast cancer and survived chemotherapy with family by her side. Beverly Hills, 90210 character Brenda Walsh (Shannen Doherty) found a lump in her breast and shed light on the fact that young women are not immune to breast cancer. Sex and the City's Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) developed breast cancer and proudly pulled off her wig on television. The L Word's Dana Fairbanks (Erin Daniels) lost her battle with breast cancer. And on Angela's Eyes, FBI agent Angela Henson recently learned her mother once had breast cancer -- and that it has come back.

There are many others television story lines woven with the thread of breast cancer. They draw viewers and boost ratings. They also raise awareness -- because people pay attention to celebrities.

A new line of pomegranate-based supplements, called Pomology, will be revealed this weekend at the 2006 Expo Trade Show in Baltimore, Maryland. According to leading nutritionists and fitness experts, "each product contains a premium blend of proven ingredients that consumers can utilize for immediate relief and long-term health benefits." Target shoppers are those seeking a boost in heart health, prostate health, antioxidant health, joint health, and menopause.

Pomegranates, known for anti-inflammatory effects and high levels of antioxidants, have been used medically for thousands of years and have recently been making headlines for their power to knock out all kinds of health problems, including cancer. Pomology was founded in 2005 by a team of nutritionists and athletic performance experts who created formulas that meet varying lifestyle needs. This product line is promoted as one of highest quality and efficacy.

The information detailed above came directly from a press release.

A few days ago, I wrote a post about Richard Morris of www.breadandmoney.com who argued that sensational press releases about miracle products and potions often land in the hands of the media who broadcast them to the public in a this-will-fix-all-your-problems fashion. Morris states that no one product will fix what ails us without the proper balance of a handful of other practices -- like relaxation, stress reduction, and exercise. It's just not likely that Pomology supplements will result in "immediate relief and long-term health benefits." It's just not. Yet that is what we might gather from this press release. And unless we take on a full-scale lifestyle overhaul, what we gather from taking supplements such as these might just be a whole lot of nothing.

Writer Richard Morris of www.breadandmoney.com coins the word nutritainment in a recent article about foods that are hyped to magically make us healthy -- foods that can cancel out cancer and wipe out heart disease. Nutritainment is nutritional news delivered in entertainment-like fashion, designed to urge consumers to buy into the latest, greatest super foods. Yet making small changes in diet -- what most consumers will do -- to incorporate these so-called powerful products is unlikely to do much good, Morris says. And he offers some thoughts on why the media continues to force this news down our throats and why we continue falling for their tactics.

Morris says human nature and marketplace economics motivate those engaged in nutritional sciences to strive for media attention and exposure. As a result, bits and pieces of nutritional studies make their way to medical journals and then land in media's lap through press releases. Some will even ghostwrite nutrition articles to promote products. These articles end up in the hands of the media and spread like wildfire to the public, in as-is format. Consumers may be left with the notion that these bits and pieces are important, relevant, non-biased research -- when this is not the case.

Morris says knowledgeable health experts who have the time to accurately report on important nutrition news are scarce. And when they do have time to share words of wisdom that really do matter, the packaging of the news is often technical and not so sensational. A headline that reads, Pomegranate juice packs power to prevent cancer will bury a scientific -- yet more accurate -- headline. Catchy headlines grab readers, and readers buy products. But headlines can be misleading -- and pomegranate juice alone is not likely to have many health benefits.

There are also issues with advertising and editorial content, according to Morris, who compares overall good nutrition to car maintenance. "Just like changing the air freshener in your car won't prevent a breakdown if the car desperately needs a tune-up, adding one item of magical food to your diet won't protect you from a breakdown either," he says and shares that a complete dietary makeover is what's necessary for good health -- that and stress reduction, physical activity, emotional balance, and life fulfillment. A quick dose of pomegranate juice may not do the trick. But a steady, consistent dose of these items will.

Teenager Abraham Cherrix made national headlines recently with a legal battle that earned him the right to fight cancer on his own terms. Cherrix, 16, who chose to treat his disease with alternative treatments after traditional therapy failed to cure him of Hodgkin's disease, was told by the courts that his choice was not acceptable -- that he must undergo higher doses of chemotherapy in combination with radiation and followed by stem cell transplant. Cherrix ended up a winner in court and is currently receiving the therapy of his choice. But despite the legal win, Cherrix and his family are losing financially.

The Cherrix family owns a kayak company in Virginia, and spring and summer are peak seasons. Since the family had to close shop on many occasions due to court appearances, profits suffered. So on Sunday afternoon, local musicians headlined a fundraising concert -- billed as Voices for Choices -- to help with medical and court costs. Cherrix could not attend -- he's in the midst of treatment in Mississippi -- but the show went on. And while the money raised is not enough to cover all outstanding bills, it is enough to remind the family of all the caring people in the world.

Reports from family indicate Cherrix is doing well with treatment and that his tumor is shrinking. If he continues to make progress, he may be able to return home soon -- so he can thank those whose support is so much more than money can buy.

Her diagnosis came at the same time as mine -- in November 2004, just after her husband, John Edwards, and John Kerry lost the presidential election. She received the same treatment as I did -- lumpectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation -- and so I was especially interested in her breast cancer journey as it paralleled my own in many ways. But just after her diagnosis surfaced in the media, Elizabeth Edwards disappeared from the radar -- perhaps like we all do in some way while immersed in the maze of cancer. So I lost track of her. But now -- almost two years later -- Edwards is back from cancer, back in the headlines, and back with a new book, Saving Grace.

Edwards, 57, reveals on the pages of her book the intricacies of her cancer ordeal. She shares that she experienced every side effect possible throughout her treatment. She bruised, bled, developed sores in her mouth, experienced numbness in her hands and feet, lost her hair, felt nauseated, ached in her bones and joints, and suffered yellowed and damaged nails -- and then chemotherapy stopped and she went on to the burning, blistering effects of radiation. Still, she managed to survive. And she thanks those who helped her survive -- for their tenderness, encouragement, humor, tears, and love -- and she writes all about it in her memoir that reveals how she juggled life and marriage and kids and cancer and how she arrived in a new place. A happy place.

Most current media reports have us believing that incidences of cancer are at epidemic proportions. What isn't making headlines is the fact that for many cancers, incidences of the disease are on the decline. This is what the American Council on Science and Health states as a result of a new report released from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If only reports like this were splashed all over our newspapers and television screens -- instead of grim reports of increasing diagnoses and deaths -- then maybe the outlook on cancer would be a bit more hopeful.

Rates of colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, stomach cancer, and cervical cancer have all been declining for two years. Drops in cases are mostly attributed to lower rates of smoking, better screening, and better treatments. For men, lung cancer death rates have also fallen.

So not all incidences of all cancers have dropped -- but some have. And this should at least keep us hoping, dreaming, wishing for a day when cancer is not even loosely associated with the word epidemic. And it should surely be cause for at least some media coverage.

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.

I read something yesterday written by a reporter who is fed up with the treatment of celebrities in the media. She is tired of the spectacular headlines about babies born to celebrities and adoptions by celebrities and every-day struggles of celebrities that blur the fact that these same things happen to real people -- non-celebrities -- and are rarely covered in the news. Sure, some of the celebrity coverage may lead to awareness. The fact that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are talking of adopting another child may encourage others in the world to reach out to homeless children. But where is the news about hoards of women who gather and walk in search of a cure for breast cancer? And why was the coming-out announcement by former In Sync band member Lance Bass the top news story on CNN the other day? Because people pay attention to announcements like these -- and however disturbing it may be -- is causes a stir. And perhaps, like this reporter says, others will gain some strength from Bass and will tackle their own sexual orientation more openly.

A news story caught my attention the other night. Not because of the news -- initially -- but because of the names that were thrown around. Names like Kelly Ripa and Lindsey Lohan and Molly Shannon -- names that were not all that important in the scheme of the story I would eventually hear. But they hooked me. And then I learned about a great event that took place last Saturday in an effort to raise funds for ovarian cancer.

Super Saturday is a day-long summer fundraising event for the entire family -- created by Donna Karan and sponsored by In Style magazine. The day features a designer garage sale with more than 200 designers, a raffle, a carnival for kids, food and refreshments, and goodie bags. All proceeds -- from ticket sales and the garage sale and raffles -- go to the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. Last year's event raised $2 million. And this year, the tally for the ninth annual event that took place in the Hamptons, is yet to be reported. What was reported is that the event was a success -- and celebrities were in attendance. And that made me pay attention.

Back in June, when Pamela Anderson stood nude in the window of fashion designer Stella McCartney's London clothes shop to bring attention to PETA, she was making a statement she would rather go nude than wear fur. Anderson chose to deliver that message in a way certain to be heard. It was an outrageous stunt but it worked -- and whether you tsk-tsk or applaud her effort, Pamela Anderson and PETA made headlines around the globe that day.

It worked for the global cosmetics company Avon in Bulgaria this week, when in a continuing effort to raise awareness for breast cancer, they launched an eye-catching public campaign using three well-known sexy celebrities of Bulgaria. Posing in a larger-than-life banner hung outside the National Art Gallery in Sofia, the three beauties stared back at passers-by with a suggestion that when the large pink ribbon covering the women in the banner in just the right places came down, the public would be in for a nude shock.

As it turns out, when the pink ribbon was pulled down, the bare-shouldered bare-legged smiling women in the poster -- television star Natalia Simeonova, pop diva Maria Ilieva and film actress Koyna Rousseva -- were holding up pink tees with a breast cancer message printed on them.

Will the public or the paparazzi ever tire of sexy or the hint of nudity or actual nudity? No -- and I am not suggesting they do. Only that this type of campaign risks becoming cliche. If I were head of a large organization with a goal to raise awareness in eye-popping ways, I would hire the brightest, most innovative and creative minds in the advertising world, and let them create something intelligent and fresh and new. But for now, Pamela Anderson and Avon know what works -- and they work it.

There is no doubt that the new cervical cancer vaccine -- Gardasil -- is revolutionary. But writer Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, shared yesterday on the washingtonpost.com that the public should consider two cautions when digesting the news of this breakthrough medical advance. He urges us, first, to understand that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective. It is 100 percent effective for the strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) it targets -- but it leaves 30 percent of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer untouched. And it does not prevent all cases of genital warts either. So it is largely effective. But it does not completely eradicate the disease.

Sprigg also believes that parents should determine whether or not their young girls get the vaccine -- that it should not be mandatory. Mandating the vaccine might be in order if HPV was spread through blood or casual contact. But it is not -- it is spread by sexual contact. And families of young girls might best address this issue through education on behavioral issues alone, without interference from the government.

The wonder of the cervical cancer vaccine is not in question by this writer and the council he represents. But there is often a full picture that lingers behind good news and sensational headlines. And Peter Sprigg offers his take on what he believes lingers behind.

The BC Cancer Agency has published the first issue of Headlines, a free newsletter for people who have been diagnosed with a brain tumor. Published quarterly, the newsletter will include the latest in brain tumor research, resources available to brain tumor patients and their families, stories of other brain tumor patients and their families, tips for staying healthy, features on websites and books for information about brain tumors, updates on complementary therapies and natural products and commonly asked questions. Headlines invites you to submit an article or ask a question for future issues. Headlines is available online as a PDF document.