Radioactive cancer patients attending this weekend's Super Bowl in Miami could be in for an alarming experience when they pass through radiation detectors designed to signal the presence of dirty bombs. Such cancer patients -- who have received treatment using radioisotopes and still may have tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies -- may want to come armed with letters from their doctors explaining their precarious set of circumstances.

The use of radioisotopes in medicine is growing -- and so is the use of radiation detectors in our security-conscious nation, which means patients are triggering alarms when they are not even aware they are being scanned, doctors and security officials say.

Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave traces of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. These traces are not enough to hurt anyone, but they are enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months.

Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, and to scan bones and lungs. And many doctors already know to equip their patients with travel cards because of the problems they can encounter in public places.

Nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures were performed in the United States in 2005 -- up 15 percent from 2001. Clearly, the number of people who could be mistaken for terrorists is quite large. So if you are one of these people -- with the power to create a buzz in a public setting -- get your papers in order so you can quickly confirm your identity as nothing more than a cancer patient.

On December 8, 2006, I wrote about a Danish study investigating the possible link between cell phone use and cancer. This largest-ever study of it's kind put fears to rest. Cell phones do not cause cancer, said researchers who announced that cell phone users -- even long-term users -- are at no more risk of developing cancer than their non-cell phone using counterparts.

There's just no biological basis for concern about radio waves, reported the lead investigator of this study. But another newer study reports something entirely different.

Long-term mobile phone users are more likely to develop cancer -- brain cancer, on the side of the head where the phone is held -- according to the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland. It will all be detailed later this year in the International Journal of Cancer, but the general gist of the study is already circulating.

The study -- the second one to suggest an increased risk of cancer due to emissions from cell phones -- found that people who regularly used cell phones for more than 10 years were 40 percent more likely to develop nervous system tumors called gliomas. Comparisons were made between 1,521 people with gliomas and 3,301 people without the tumors. While no connections were initially made between the phones and cancer, a link was found when researchers specifically focused on those who had used their phones for more than 10 years.

Short-term use of cell phones has never been linked to cancer. That's good. But I tend to believe cell phones are going to become even more a staple of our technologically-driven lives than they are now. And so 10 years may actually be considered short-term one day -- which means we all may soon be at risk.

For now, until research becomes more conclusive, we get to pick and choose which study to stand behind. So take your pick -- and stay tuned for future scientific revelations.

We have been following the story about a potential cancer cluster that has caused thyroid cancer in teens living within a few miles of each other. The parents have been seeking help and answers to determine if there is an environmental cause. The parent group stated they had approached the state and county and felt they were being ignored in the request to have the water in the area tested. Last week, the city stepped up and offered to investigate.

After the story came out about the Trenton teens, one of the parents said the parent group has been contacted by six other people in the area with thyroid cancer.

In a new development, Cincinnati News 5, who is following this story closely, and investigating information as it becomes available, recently aired an interview with Dr. Peter Rickards of Idaho, who has been investigating other thyroid cancer cases in the Pacific Northwest linked to radioactive fallout from nuclear tests.

According to Dr. Rickards, drinking milk from cows who grazed in dairy fields contaminated with radioactive iodine-131 has been linked to increased cases of thyroid cancer in the Pacific Northwest.

Dr. Rickards suggests the parents and investigators in Trenton look for a fresh source of radioactive iodine in the neighborhood.

Dr. Rickards went on to suggest that they need to take a look at how medical incinerators and cancer clinics have been disposing of iodine-131, perhaps incorrectly, and that might possibly be a source of contamination. He doesn't say this is the definitive cause for the unusual number of young people being diagnosed with thyroid cancer in Butler County -- only that it might be a good place to start looking for answers.

You can watch the Cincinnati News 5 news report video Expert: Contaminated Milk Possibly To Blame For Cancer Cases here.

A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, July 5, 2006 issue, confirms children exposed to radioactive iodine and cesium from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster suffer higher rates of thyroid cancer. The higher the dosage at the time of the accident, the greater the chances they have, or will, develop thyroid cancer. Columbia University in New York researchers, who conducted the study, state that understanding the exposure to radiation is significant, because radioactive iodine is frequently used in medicine.

For additional information, here are past posts we have published regarding the Chernobyl nuclear disaster cancer risks and low-level nuclear radiation increases in cancer:

• TORCH: the other report on Chernobyl
• Greenpeace: Chernobyl cancer deaths grossly underestimated
• Tooth Fairy Project: low level radiation link to cancer

The Columbia University in New York researchers conclude with the statement, "We estimate that 75 percent of the thyroid cancer cases would have been avoided in the absence of radiation."

Compared to cancer rates in England and other parts of Wales, young women under 50 years of age living in the vicinity of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north Wales are diagnosed with breast cancer at a rate 15 times higher than the national averages.

For all other cancers, the rate is double was it is in other communities. The power plant is shut down but the effects from the radioactive waste are still being felt in cancer diagnosis.

Earlier this week, Greenpeace and 52 scientists issued a study stating that the long-term cancer effects of the Chernobyl disaster have been grossly underestimated by the International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum, and released an independent report highlighting the grim realities. In another study, called The Other Report on Chernobyl, known as the TORCH study, two British scientists report that 20 years after the nuclear explosion, in what is referred to as the world's worst industrial accident, leukemia, breast cancers, bladder cancers, and kidney cancers in people exposed to the radiation fallout continue to be diagnosed in countries as far away as the UK.

Torch claims that more than half of the fallout from the explosion landed outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, contaminating about 34 per cent of the UK's surface. It reveals that there are still restrictions on 374 farms covering 750 square kilometers and 200,000 sheep in the UK. The Other Report on Chernobyl, TORCH, is a 91 page study available online as a PDF document. Its comprehensive information, including an explanation of why the figures have been downplayed, makes for a compelling read. We live on a very small planet, and what affects one area of our planet will eventually have an affect on other parts of the planet. The winds and weather patterns carried the Chernobyl power plant disaster worldwide.

"There are two compelling reasons why this tragedy must not be forgotten. First, if we forget Chernobyl, we increase the risk of more technological and environmental disasters in the future. Second, more than seven million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering every day." -- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General 2000

On April 22, Earth Day is observed each year to promote awareness of environmental issues. According to Earth Day's founder, Senator Gaylord Nelson, who, in 1970, wrote letters to colleges and put a special article in Scholastic Magazine to promote the special day he had planned, Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level. People cared. People were concerned. According to Senator Nelson, the first year event organized itself. Today, over three decades later, Earth Day is a worldwide event. People still care. People are still concerned.

Environmental issues are of special concern to cancer survivors and people interested in cancer prevention. Environmental toxins and pollution are some of the causes linked to the risk and development of cancer. At The Cancer Blog, we post information from reputable and respected individuals and organizations outlining some of the environmental concerns as it relates to cancer risks. This is the second recap of posts, the first recap can be found here.

• Greenpeace: Chernobyl cancer deaths grossly underestimated
• Gardening organic for cancer prevention
• Cancer society calls for ban on lawn and garden pesticides
• Peter Max Earth Day T-Shirt benefits breast cancer
• Earth Day cancer survivor and the Rachel Carson for our time
• TCE: groundwater contamination in toxic triangle of cancer
• Oyster Creek nuclear power plant link to childhood cancer
• Tooth Fairy Project: low level radiation link to cancer
• Health agency saying higher cancer rates have little meaning
• Potato farms a hotbed of cancer debate
• California and New York highest air pollution cancer risks
• Environmental contaminants strong link to cancer

Greenpeace has issued a report stating the cancer death toll resulting from the Chernobyl disaster is grossly underestimated, and that the true figures will exceed a quarter of a million cancers cases, with over 100,000 fatal cancers. With the information compiled, Greenpeace and 52 scientists challenge the International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report as a gross simplification of the real experiences of human suffering.

In an effort to put faces on the statistical numbers, a new photography exhibit of victims will be traveling through 30 cities worldwide. Some of the photographs are featured online here. I will warn you though, the photographs of the children are especially heartbreaking and will disturb you.

According to a statement on the Greenpeace website, "These powerful images are a timely reminder that human lives are more than just  numbers. For each statistic there is a person paying the ultimate price. Anyone who doubts the dangers of nuclear power should visit the exhibition and see for themselves one of the reasons why we oppose nuclear power. Twenty years on, every nuclear power plant bears the legacy of  the nuclear industry's victims; and every nuclear power plant represents the threat of becoming the next Chernobyl."

The world is facing an energy crisis, and according to energy experts, it is not going to get better. But given the known dangers, are nuclear power plants the way to solve the problem?

Photo credit: Greenpeace. Elena, 19, is being treated for her second case of thyroid cancer in just 3 years.