Remember that old saying -- An apple a day keeps the doctor away? Well, it seems that an apple peel a day might keep cancer at bay, according to a new study.

A dozen compounds have been found called triterpenoids. These compounds found in the peel of an apple either inhibit or kill cancer cells in lab cultures.

"We found that several compounds have potent anti-proliferative activities against human liver, colon and breast cancer cells and may be partially responsible for the anti-cancer activities of whole apples," says Rui Hai Liu, Cornell associate professor of food science.

Previous studies have shown that apples not only fight cancer cells in the laboratory but they also have shown to reduce the number and size of mammary tumors in rats.

So, don't peel those apples. Eat the whole thing!

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 all of my research on breast cancer -- and all of my attempts to discover what I may have done to invite this disease into my body -- I have learned that there are some behavioral risk factors related to cancer. Some risk factors are loosely linked and perhaps need further study. And some are definites. Like smoking. And consistent use of alcohol. Now a new study done on rats now shows that nicotine can reduce blood alcohol concentrations and can lead to heavier drinking. Smoking and drinking -- at the same time -- may be even more dangerous than originally thought.

Only two previous studies have examined the interactions between nicotine and alcohol. So there is very little research about how nicotine assists in the metabolizing of alcohol. Until now -- said Wei-Jung Chen, associate professor of neuroscience and experimental therapies at the Texas A&M Health Science Center in College Station, Texas. Chen said it was clear in her study that the presence of nicotine significantly reduced peak blood alcohol content. This was observed only when alcohol entered through the stomach -- and not when injected into the abdomen. For humans, this means that people smoking while drinking will have to drink even more to reach the effect they desire. This will ultimately lead to increased amounts of toxic byproducts in the body. And it may prevent absorption of beneficial drugs in some people who both smoke and drink. And I can't imagine that the list of negatives will stop here. But is there really any more information necessary to support the danger of this combination of risky behaviors -- behaviors that on their own are dangerous enough to cause worry and concern.

Stephen Daniells, a journalist and scientist, has worked both sides of the fence, and as such, has as qualified a voice as any in addressing the controversial debate that rages between science and the media. Scurrilous accusations of journalistic conspiracy are made by scientists when it comes to the sensationalism media employs when reporting scientific research and medical news -- and the journalists equally complain that scientists use the same tactics when they pull out the most attention-getting part of a study while leaving out the better but less interesting facts buried deep within the research findings.

Both sides seem to be exploiting the other by manipulative means. According to Daniells, currently a food science reporter with a PhD in Chemistry from Queen's University Belfast who has worked in research in the Netherlands and France, suggests that all the shaming and blaming needs to stop. The relationship between journalist and scientist must be mended and developed amicably if science is to get a fair deal in the press. Ultimately, where this all leads is to consumers being presented with balanced and accurate science and medical news coverage. Daniells writes an excellent commentary with great examples to support his observations and conclusions.

You might be thinking to yourself that cancer is nothing to sing about -- and there is certainly nothing funny about cancer. But the folks at Planet Ant thought there was something funny enough to sing about when they decided to produce Cancer! the Musical. Martin F. Kohn, a Detroit Free Press theater critic, who went to go see the show thought that a musical that opens with singing lab rats is hysterical.

"The show satirizes, sometimes hilariously, unfeeling health insurers, greedy pharmaceutical corporations, impersonal doctors -- eye contact is the leading cause of emotional involvement -- and scientists motivated not by altruism but by lust for glory. At no time does Cancer! The Musical make fun of people who are ill."

Thomas Donnellon, one of the authors, is a cancer survivor -- the other writer Shawn Handlon has a brother who is a cancer survivor. Go here to read the full critical review. If you live in the Detroit area, go here for tickets. The show runs through May 20.

It might be that many common snack foods such as cookies, puddings, ice cream, nutmeg, ketchup and some biscottis containing anise could prove to be carcinogenic. The essential oil methyleugenol is present in all of these foods and has been connected to liver, stomach and kidney cancer in studies of rats and mice. Methyleugenol has yet to be listed as a proven carcinogen in humans but it has been labeled as a potentially human carcinogen. In a study that lasted from 1994 to 1998, 98 percent of the 206 participating adults were found to have traces of methyleugenol in their blood.

It is nearly impossible to prevent all methyleugenol from the diet; however, the best way to prevent the ingestion of the chemical is to avoid processed foods. Studies have shown that Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their food budget on processed foods. By purchasing raw ingredients and preparing meals from scratch methyleugenol can easily be avoided.