Many Americans have begun taking folic acid supplements thinking that it can protect against colon cancer and also cut a person's risk of stroke and heart disease.

In the past, animal studies led researchers to believe that folic acid had these beneficial effects. The National Institutes of Heath funded a clinical trial that enrolled more than 1,000 men and women who previously had polyps removed from their colons.

Those in the study were randomly assigned to take daily pills containing either 1 milligram of folic acid or a placebo. The study showed that those who took the folic acid got just as many new colon polyps as those who took the placebo pills.

Robert Sandler, M.D., chief of the division of gastroenterology and hematology, told WebMD, "We are disappointed and surprised that it didn't work. In fact, there was some evidence that folic acid increased cancer risk."

Cancer sent me into a state of depression. And it took more than a year of counseling and treatment with an anti-depressant to bring me back to a balanced and healthy level of functioning.

My type of depression -- the kind that shows up just after a cancer diagnosis -- is not uncommon. And neither is the spillover that depression can leave on the children of moms depressed because of their disease.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh -- the first to examine the relationship between children's concerns and a mother's cancer-related depression -- found children of depressed breast cancer patients were more likely to be concerned or anxious about their mother's cancer and about how the disease affects their families.

It's not surprising that kids worry about their moms during times of illness. What startled researchers, though, is the fact that children's' anxieties extended to concerns about the entire family.

The results of this study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, has clear implications. As a society, we need to think about how depression affects whole family units. Oncologists must learn to spot depression early and must swiftly assist women in finding appropriate treatment. And parents should talk openly about cancer and it's emotional side effects with their children in an effort to protect them from withdrawing, hiding their concerns, and suffering in silence.

Most estimates indicate nearly one quarter of women diagnosed with breast cancer have young children. And about 100,000 kids will be affected by a cancer diagnosis this year alone.

I wish I could reverse the damage I've already done to my skin after too much time spent in the scorching sun, in search of a tan. It's seems unfair that a tan is so temporary -- yet its damage is everlasting. And it seems crazy that so many people are still searching for a tan -- when it has become so clear that is it so harmful.

As many as 60,000 people a year die from too much sun -- mostly from malignant skin cancer -- according to the World Health Organization (WHO). About 48,000 deaths are caused by malignant melanomas, and 12,000 deaths are caused by other kinds of skin cancer. And 90 percent of these cancers are caused by ultraviolet light from the sun. Cancer is not the only side effect of sun exposure, though -- serious sunburn, wrinkling, eye cataracts, growths on the flesh of the eye, cold sores, and other illness can result from the sun.

We all need some sun -- the vitamin D that is produced in the body by the sun helps to prevent disease and immune disorders. But too much is dangerous and sometimes deadly. Yet almost all ill effects from the sun can be prevented. And the WHO has released a report that advises people to seek shade, to use sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15, and to stay out of tanning salons. The report operates under the premise that sunscreens be used not to prolong sun exposure but to protect the skin when exposure is unavoidable.

Before my radiation for breast cancer, I heard horror stories about the treatment. I heard that I might be extremely tired and severely burned and that I might feel generally unwell for the time it would take to completely zap any and all traces of cancer surrounding my breast. But my own radiation wasn't all that bad -- and really, the worst part of the whole therapy for me was the drive to and from the cancer center every day for seven weeks. It was a hassle, a nuisance, a bother. There were other small annoyances throughout the course of my radiation, but they were minimal -- thanks to some secrets that were shared with me along the scorching path of radiation and beyond. And here are seven of them.

Chemotherapy sometimes creates a problem with infertility. I stopped having monthly periods at the age of 41 when going into early menopause after chemotherapy. Women want to be aggressive in treating their cancer but worry about how to protect themselves from becoming sterile. Especially those women who have not yet had children and are planning a family.

One option for women who are getting ready to undergo chemotherapy is to harvest some of their eggs involving freezing and storing them for later use. Lots of campaign issues against egg harvesting are actively being discussed but for women undergoing chemotherapy and still wanting to have children, this has been the number one option they have faced. Now research is being done on using a new drug to temporarily shut down the ovaries. Then when chemotherapy is completed, doctors work on restoring your periods.

Mercy medical oncologist Dr. David Riseberg of the Institute for Cancer Care at Mercy Medical Center said the idea is that putting a woman into temporary menopause will protect the ovaries from chemo. Studies about that are going on right now. "There are still questions about whether -- with these injections -- whether there is still impairment in the ability of women to have children, but we think getting the periods to return is an important first step," Dr. Riseberg said.

Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine expected to receive FDA approval any day now, and proven to provide women 100 percent protection against cervical cancer, might also offer the same level of protection against vulvar and vaginal cancers. Finnish researchers of the study that made the discovery note that while vulvar and vaginal cancers are less common than cervical cancer, more younger women are being diagnosed with vulvar and vaginal cancers.

The cervical cancer vaccines set to be approved this year guard against human papillomavirus, HPV -- a virus known to lead to cervical cancer. HPV is responsible for all cases of cervical cancers and is present in 80 percent of the 6,000 cases of vaginal and vulvar cancers diagnosed in the United States each year.

In a separate study, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute researchers have announced that the cervical cancer vaccine might lead to less cancer of the head and neck. "If we vaccinate everybody in the U.S., we could probably impact head and neck cancer in approximately 20 years," said Marshall Posner, director of the head and neck oncology program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Consumer Reports has completed a review of the FDA testing on mercury levels found in canned tuna and issued new safety concerns. While the focus is on a clear alert for pregnant women and the damage mercury-contaminated tuna can cause to a developing fetus, mercury is also known to have an adverse effect on the immune system of adults. For anyone interested in cancer prevention, a healthy immune system is a vital first-line defense to keeping cancer from developing in the first place. Mercury, once consumed, can stay in the body for years.

Because of the new information provided by Consumer Reports regarding the dangers of canned tuna, and because fish is an excellent cancer prevention food, here is a list of fish that have shown consistently low-levels of mercury during testing and are safe to eat daily. Wild salmon and tilapia can be safely eaten every day. Flounder, sole, mullet, Atlantic mackerel and crab can be safely eaten once a week. In addition, Consumer Reports found fish-oil supplements to be a safe, reliable way to get omega-3 fatty acids. You can check state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency advisories for contaminant levels of fish caught where you live here.

The American Cancer Society, ACS, Cancer Action Network, CAN, has issued a Save Our Mammograms and Cancer Screenings action alert for concerned citizens concerning legislation S.1955 designed to undermine important patient protections and hamper efforts to prevent, detect and treat cancer. State laws that ensure cancer screenings protections will be threatened. According to the ACS, this bill would eliminate all of the progress made in the states that guarantee access to mammograms, colon cancer screening, pap smears, clinical trial participation, off-label drug use and other cancer screenings and treatments. The ACS is asking Americans to stand up to protect these vital cancer screenings. ACS has provided an easy-to-use online form that allows citizens to contact U.S. Senators and voice opposition to this legislation. It is an election year. They just might pay a little more attention to what the voters have to say right now. Go here to speak up and have your opinion count.

Thank to Keri of 500 Miles 2 Nowhere for this blog lead!

The world was stunned to learn that Dana Reeve, a non-smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer. Peter Jennings, who had quit smoking many years before his lung cancer death -- and who had only recently taken up the smoking habit again before being diagnosed with lung cancer -- was perhaps less confusing. Jennings publicly blamed smoking for his cancer. For many among us, spoken or unspoken, lung cancer has been thought to be a smoker's disease. With the loss of Dana Reeve, a non-smoker, new questions were asked, and conversation began, into all the causes of lung cancer. As a result of Dana Reeve's lung cancer death, non-smokers were asking out loud -- how much danger am I in for developing lung cancer. The every day person was soon to learn that not much is truly known about lung cancer, or clearly spelled out.

One of the most confounding truths about lung cancer and smoking, is that only 15 percent of smokers develop lung cancer, and almost 20 percent of lung cancer diagnosis involve non-smokers. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers are attempting to develop an assessment model to determine who is at greater risk for lung cancer. Here is some of the information they have come up with so far in the assessment model:

• Heavy smokers who have a previous history of emphysema exhibit nearly a four times increased risk of lung cancer than light smokers without emphysema.
• The risk of developing lung cancer increases to nearly 11-fold if a patient with the same medical history also has an inefficient DNA repair capacity.
• Individuals with a history of allergies have a 29 percent reduced risk of lung cancer.
• Such individuals, who also exhibit efficient DNA repair capacity, have a 56 percent reduced risk of developing lung cancer, compared with people who do not have allergies with poor DNA repair genes.
• Genetically, family members of lung cancer patients had more than a six-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer before the age of 50. Their risk of developing any type of cancer before age 50 was 44 percent higher.

Because there is such an increased focus on lung cancer now, this is just the beginning of information we can expect to learn in the near future to not only predict, but prevent by intervention, lung cancer for those who are at greater risk of developing the disease.