The folks at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona told me all about the merits of flax seed. They told me to sprinkle it here, sprinkle it there, sprinkle it everywhere. While at this desert destination, I did just that. I dipped into the bowls of flax scattered at all dining locations, and I topped my bagels, cereals, salads, and more with this powerful substance. As soon as I got home from this little slice of paradise, I bought my own personal container of flax. I promptly placed it in my refrigerator, have used it a few times, and just recently realized I'd forgotten why exactly it's so good for me.

I've done some research, and now I know a little more about this thing called flax -- and I remember why it must become a part of my everyday life.

Flax, also known as Common Flax or Linseed, is an annual plant that grows to 120 cm tall, with slender stems. Native to the region extending from the eastern Mediterranean to India, its leaves are green, its flowers blue, its fruit round and containing glossy brown seeds. Grown for both its seeds and its fibers, parts of this plant are used to make fabric, dye, paper, medicines, fishing nets, and soap. The seeds, like what sit in my refrigerator, come in two forms -- brown and yellow or golden. The yellow, golden variety is the one most often consumed.

High-profile television and newspaper gosspip columnist Claudia Cohen, most recently a regular correspondent covering entertainment for the syndicated talk show Live With Regis and Kelly, died Friday of ovarian cancer. She was 56.

Known for her aggressive pursuit of celebrity news and her public divorce from billionaire businessman Ronald O. Perelman, Cohen first hit the spotlight in the late 1970s as a reporter and editor for Page Six of The New York Post. She went on to write a gossip column titled I, Claudia for The Daily News of New York, report for Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, and dish celebrity dirt for ABC's The Morning Show.

Cohen is survived by her parents, a brother, and a daughter.

Jacqueline, a clever and crafty breast cancer survivor made this shirt -- pictured at right -- especially for the 2006 Susan G. Komen walk in Central Park. She didn't like the over-sized, over-advertised shirts passed out to the masses, so she designed her own. Notice the songbird stripe on the right side of the shirt? This seamstress renovated the piece to create visual balance for women who have lost a breast and wish to forgo mastectomy and prostheses.

Jacqueline, who has named her clothing line Rhea Belle, had a right-side mastectomy in January 2004. She knew she would leave her body as is, but her existing wardrobe didn't "fit" her new shape. When she realized she could either accept her changed architecture or camouflage it, she chose the former.

Post-menopausal women: stay away from barbecued and smoked meat. Or at least increase your intake of fruit and vegetables.

Why?

Because a new study found that post-menopausal women who ate the most grilled, barbecued, and smoked red meat over a lifetime have a 47 percent higher risk of breast cancer. Those who additionally skimped on fruits and veggies had a 74 percent increase in risk.

Think about this:

Red meat makes headlines -- again -- due to new research indicating it increases a woman's chances of developing breast cancer. I've heard this before. Maybe that's because it's becoming pretty conclusive.

Findings are most significant for post-menopausal women because these are the women with the highest rates of consumption -- about one portion of red meat per day. This daily doses puts them at a 56 percent greater risk than women who eat no red meat.

Researchers at the University of Leeds followed the eating habits and health of more than 35,000 women over the past seven years to gather their data, published in the British Journal of Cancer.

This comment just arrived in response to yesterday's post Headed for melanoma, and it's just too raw and powerful to leave buried in the comment section of the site.

So here it is, word for word -- a chilling and empowering message from a 37-year-old mom of two living with a disease that is downright deadly.

I have melanoma. I was diagnosed last August and have had 6 surgeries in 6 months.

I have lost 4 members in my melanoma support group. I go to Jaime's funeral tomorrow afternoon. She was 29 years old. Heather was 37 when she died on March 2, 2007. The midwife noticed a suspicious mole on her leg during the birth of her 4th child. She died 23 months later. Jan was a mother of 5 ages 9 to 19, she passed away on February 8, 2007. Ceri was only 20 years old when melanoma claimed her life on January 14, 2007.

I always thought skin cancer had to be HUGE, ugly, and hard to ignore. I didn't know it could be small, have no symptoms, and KILL you.

Melanoma incidence is increasing faster than any other cancer. According to statistics found on the American Cancer Society's website (www.cancer.org), the prognosis for someone diagnosed with melanoma is worse, stage for stage, than someone with breast cancer.

Getting more than 3 blistering sunburns during childhood doubles your risk. Sunbed use increases ones risk. Having fair skin and light eyes also puts you at a higher than average risk, but having dark skin does not make you immune. Bob Marley died from Melanoma in 1981.

Everyone at higher risk should get screened by a dermatologist every year. And all of us should be checking our own skin each month.

Melanoma is a virulent and aggressive cancer. It begins in the melanocytes, or the pigment in the skin. It presents itself as a change in an existing mole or skin pigment, or in the formation of a new one. It is easily treated in its most early stages. Once it spreads, though, it is often fatal.

Unfortunately, there is no cure for melanoma. Melanoma is one of the cancers that won't respond to conventional chemotherapy. There have been no significant advances in the medical treatment or survival rate in the last 30 years.

More awareness is needed. Most think "it's only skin cancer" and consider it nothing serious. But I can tell you with absolute certainty, they are DEAD wrong.

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.

Today I watched a video of myself. I was interviewing my grandmother about her 83 years worth of memories -- a project my husband and I dreamed up so that my grandma's life story would live on long after her death.

The video was taped in May 2000, three years before my grandma died and four and a half years before I was diagnosed with cancer. My hair was long and blond and straight, like it had been since I was a little girl, and it was twisted and clipped on the top of my head. I instantly longed for this hair -- and for my grandma too -- and just as I was convincing myself that my post-chemotherapy dark, curly hair was merely a new phase of my life -- much like the phase of living without my grandma -- my six-year-old son entered the room, looked at the TV screen and said, "Mommy, I really like your hair like that."

"I do too," I told Joey.

"Can you get it back?" he said.

"No, I can't get it back," I replied, knowing that I would never bleach my hair back to its original natural color and that the forces of nature will forever prevent me from removing the curl that today looked somewhat like what frames a lion's face.

So, no, I can't get my hair back. And I can't get my grandma back. But I am thankful for the video that captures us together, talking and laughing and remembering. And should my own grandchildren ever wish to interview me when I am 83 years old, I will definitely tell them about my sweet and spunky grandma and all of her touching stories. And I will tell them about the great blond hair I had the privilege of wearing for the first 34 years of my life.

My new breast cancer friend recently sat through her second infusion of Adriamycin and Cytoxan -- the long-time traditional chemotherapy combination for breast cancer -- and all the while, listened to another breast cancer survivor share her thoughts on these two drugs.

This woman told my friend she opted to stray from these chemotherapy agents because of their toxic side effects, because of their combined potential for causing other cancers, like leukemia. She instead took another drug route and was happy for her decision. My friend, however, was scared.

My friend returned home from her treatment and found herself reading a Cancer Blog post reporting that Adriamycin and Cytoxan may no longer be the gold standard treatment for breast cancer, that Taxotere and Cytoxan may become the preferred, safer option.

Fear and panic set in, and my friend e-mailed me, in search of perspective from a recipient of the drugs she was starting to believe are both ineffective and cancer-causing.

I am not a doctor. I am not an expert. I am not qualified in any way to represent the facts about medical research. But I am surviving breast cancer. And I did spend eight difficult weeks under the influence of Adriamycin and Cytoxan, given every two weeks in a dose-dense fashion. So I have an opinion about these drugs -- and about most things breast cancer related.

I shared my opinion with my friend, who has since decided to proceed with her prescribed treatment plan. I told her that in rare cases, chemotherapy can cause a second cancer, like leukemia. But this is not common, and the unlikely risk does not outweigh the benefit of receiving chemotherapy to address the cancer at hand.

I also shared with my friend that we can only benefit from therapies that are available and effective at the time of our treatment. Studies prove that Adriamycin and Cytoxan work -- that's why so many women are treated with this accepted method. Drugs in the research pipeline may one day definitively replace what is available today. But we must be OK with what we receive -- because we have no control over what lies ahead. We must live in the here and now -- with the knowledge that should our cancers return, bigger and better options may await us.

Consider Herceptin. Once not even an option for women with aggressive HER2 positive breast cancer, this targeted drug may be the magic bullet in an attack against this disease. I received Herceptin. My friend will receive Herceptin. Timing was on our side for this medical breakthrough.

Timing may not have been on our side should a new gold-standard drug treatment emerge and replace Adriamycin and Cytoxan. But we can still trust these two drugs will do their jobs, will prevent a recurrence of a disease that is so much more treatable today than it was years ago. Lucky for us.

The build-up to 2006 was a bit uncertain for me. At the end of 2004, I was diagnosed with breast cancer and set my sights on short-term survival, moment by moment, day by day. I wasn't sure 2005 -- in its entirety -- was a guarantee so I tried not to look too far ahead. I focused on the completion of each of the year's cancer steps -- surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, the beginning of a year-long Herceptin therapy, and so much more -- and somehow, I survived the whole ordeal. And the whole year.

I made it through 2005, and I have almost made it through 2006 -- a year marked by a cancer slow-down, a more normal existence. Moment by moment, day by day, the burden of cancer loosened it's grip on me. And as I begin to reflect on the year that has all but passed before my eyes, I realize it turned out just fine. Here are seven reasons why.

• On May 19, 2006, my very first post published on The Cancer Blog. What a thrill it was -- and still is -- to find myself engaged in a useful pursuit as a result of my own cancer experience.
  

• On June 28, 2006, the last drops of Herceptin made their way through my body, marking the conclusion of 17 doses of this hopefully life-saving potion.

• On September 15, 2006, my port came out, signaling my acceptance of a life without drug treatment, my faith that I will never again need a foreign object sewn under my skin.

• On December 6, 2006, 18 months of counseling came to a close. Armed with skills to cope with all sorts of emotional issues, I am marching forward, free of the disabling anxiety and free-flowing tears that first landed me in the counseling chair.

• For much of 2006, I have been a student of fitness training, pushing myself physically in search of better health. It's not always easy, I'm not always motivated, and I am known to whine a bit -- but still, I am happier just knowing I am working toward sustained health.
  

• Throughout the entire year, I have walked away from every medical check-up and follow-up with a clean bill of health. I hear the longer someone survives cancer, the less likely the disease is to return. Happily, I have two years of survival under my belt.

• Ever since my diagnosis, I have been reaching for others with journeys similar to mine. First, I reached for support and guidance and reassurance. Then, I reached to offer my own version of support and guidance and reassurance. The year 2006 has been full of rich connections, found only because of cancer. Reaching makes me feel good.

Yes, the year 2006 turned out just fine.

Breast cancer statistics for 2003 are in, and researchers have announced that the number of breast cancer cases dropped by an impressive seven percent, with the greatest drop occurring in women between ages 50-69 diagnosed with estrogen receptor positive (ER-positive) breast cancer.

The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers attribute this good news to the fact that in the same time frame, millions of women stopped taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) over concerns that HRT led to an increased risk for breast cancer.

If the statistics hold for upcoming years, HRT will have proven a greater causative effect leading to breast cancer than originally believed.

"Incidence of breast cancer had been increasing in the 20 or so years prior to July 2002, and this increase was over and above the known role of screening mammography," stated Donald Berry, Ph.D. "HRT had been proposed as a possible factor, although the magnitude of any HRT effect was not known. Now the possibility that the effect is much greater than originally thought all along is plausible, and that is a remarkable finding."

While the researchers best guesstimate is that HRT might be the contributing factor to the drop in ER-positive breast cancer cases for 2003, they cannot be 100 percent certain at this point. We will need to wait and see what the years 2004 and 2005 tell us about any continuing declines in breast cancer cases, and learn what other, if any, contributing factors are responsible for the decline.

Previous posts we have done regarding HRT and breast cancer:

• Hooray for HRT!?
• HRT and smoking dramatically increases breast cancer risk
• HRT increases breast cancer risks

One in five postmenopausal women with estrogen-positive breast cancer do not take the newer chemoprevention hormone therapy aromatase inhibitor drugs to prevent recurrence as prescribed, according Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals researchers who conducted a study to determine drug usage.

Aromatase inhibitors, such as Anastrozole, have been shown to be an effective means of blocking estrogen that fuels cancer for women diagnosed with estrogen-positive breast cancer, and Dana Farber's Dr. Ann Partridge warns that, "Women may be compromising their care, and ultimately their survival, if they do not take these medications as recommended."

Despite warnings, a significant number of women are choosing to discontinue use and the researchers of this survey can only speculate as to the reasons why. Some of the reasons they believe play a role in the women's decision not to comply with recommended treatment are: fear of side effects, actual experience of side effects, cost of treatment, and negative health beliefs that treatment will not help.

From a personal insight, the most common reason I know of as to why women are not taking this medication, or discontinue usage, is the fact that these drugs do not have a long history of use, and one can only guess what the possible, and presently unknown, long-term side effects will end up being. While Dr. Partridge states without a shadow of a doubt that these new aromatase inhibitor drugs are effective in breast cancer recurrence, only time itself will remedy the hesitation and non-compliance.

Some of the aromatase inhibitors include Anastrozole (Arimidex), Letrozole (Femara), Exemestane (Aromasin) and Formestane (Lentaron). To learn more about aromatase inhibitors, visit the National Cancer Institute's aromatase inhibitors digest.

Photographer Paula Lerner was diagnosed with breast cancer just after beginning work on Why We Walk: The Inspirational Journey Toward a Cure for Breast Cancer -- a book that captures through photographs the momentum of millions who year after year crowd America's streets and walk to conquer this disease.

A peek into this book is offered in the form of an online slide show, hosted by the Washington Post. Set to inspiring music and lyrics and lasting just three minutes and 59 seconds, this media presentation tells a story about a disease that strikes every three minutes and kills every 14 minutes.

Gripping photographs and sobering facts dominate this powerful piece. There are shots of women in pink wigs and pink tutus, children hosing off physically and emotionally drained walkers, women holding up photographs of lost loved ones -- one with a printed message that reads, Mom, we would walk forever to bring you back. May 14, 2004. There are smiles and cheers and tears. Every image packs an emotional punch.

The facts that appear throughout the slide show really stand out. They spell out in black and white some of the most important facts about breast cancer. And here they are -- all seven of them.

• 40,970 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer annually.

• Breast cancer is the most common cancer in African American women but ranks second to lung cancer in cause of cancer deaths.

• People over the age of 50 account for 77 percent of breast cancer cases.

• Breast cancer is most commonly diagnosed among Hispanic women and is the leading cause of cancer death among this group.

• Being overweight is linked to a higher risk of breast cancer, especially after menopause.

• Risk is increased by onset of menstruation before age 12, menopause after 50, first child after 30, or no children.

• Family history of breast cancer increases risk, especially if close relatives are diagnosed before the age of 50. A first-degree relative -- mother, sister, daughter -- with breast cancer approximately doubles the risk of breast cancer.

The magazine Beyond: Live and Thrive After Breast Cancer made its public debut on September 19 when it arrived on the shelves of bookstores and grocery stores across the United States. And the magazine -- created to help breast cancer survivors nurture their physical and emotional health -- has caused quite a stir already.

Readers of a previous Cancer Blog post introducing the magazine say they can't get enough it and can't wait for the next issue. Contributing Editor Martha Miller Johnson says it's been a crazy month for the magazine team. She reports that the magazine is selling incredibly well, that she is receiving the most amazing e-mails from a wonderful group of women. The Des Moines Register and Connecticut Post both have done big stories on the magazine and in the midst of the flurry of success, work has already begun on the next and second issue that will hit newsstands on March 20, 2007.

Beyond is published by Meredith Special Interest Media twice per year in Fall/Winter and Spring/Summer editions. Currently, subscriptions are not available, but the magazine is available all across America and can also be purchased on-line.

It's no surprise this magazine has caught the attention of people everywhere. It's a timely, colorful, glossy breast cancer handbook. It's chock full of candid stories, recent research, and helpful hints. It's a breast cancer community that is inspiring, hopeful, and completely comforting.

Breast density has something to do with breast cancer. This is not really news. It's clear there is some kind of link, some kind of relationship, some kind of risk related to breast density for both pre- and post-menopausal women. It's just not clear how exactly breast density -- how much fat tissue fills the breast compared to other tissue -- contributes to breast cancer risk. But once it is clear, medical professionals will have a whole new arsenal of power in the fight against this deadly disease.

Cancer News in Context, a regular series of podcast commentaries produced by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, highlights two recent studies that add weight to the fact that breast density is an important tool in breast cancer prediction and identifies two areas that with futher study might help determine why breasts that are very dense are associated with higher risks for breast cancer -- and why density may be as important a factor as age in determining risk.

Currently, mammograms are the chosen method for measuring breast density. But measurement is not required, and there are no national standards for how to measure. Once federal groups issue requirements and direction on how to classify density, women will receive more accurate assessments of their personal risk.

There is also speculation that altering breast density through hormonal therapy may lower risk. Perhaps genetics are the strongest indicator of risk, making short-term solutions ineffective, but perhaps certain interventions can override genetics, helping women protect themselves from breast cancer.

There are many issues that must be ironed out before we really understand how breast density affects breast cancer. There is no doubt that density, when added to other risk factors, will surely help improve the accuracy of prediction. It's one tool, among many, that is poised to open all sorts of doors.