Today, I've been asked twice to offer more specifics about the information contained in posts. I thought I'd communicate my thoughts on this matter publicly so you all may benefit.

First, let me share that blogging is like talking to a friend -- Hey, did you hear about that new study about the breast cancer vaccine?, I might say to my neighbor before I explain the overall gist of the news I happened upon. The purpose of blogging is to communicate a few details and to spark interest, not to capture every speck of information on the topic. Digging up the nitty gritty is for you, the reader.

Your quest for more knowledge takes just one click. Once you read a post, look to the bottom left and you will see a blue link titled Read. Click here and you'll land at the news source related to the post. If you don't find what you're looking for here, just type some key words into Google and search for more. If bloggers happen to find news but there is no internet link -- this happens with magazines and other print publications -- the source will be noted at the end of the post.

If a post contains personal perspective, like this one, you won't find a Read link -- that's because the source is in the blogger's head. You are welcome to leave a comment requesting more information about these posts.

Now this whole lesson on the Read link does not mean you cannot ask questions of bloggers -- please do -- but if you desire the quickest route to post details, this link is your best bet.

I hope this is clear. And I hope you find exactly what you seek in this world where cancer is one hot topic.

Daniel Sieberg, science and technology correspondent for CBS News and blogger for Tech Talk recently went searching for online sites offering help and hope for those seeking insight into the world of cancer.

Sieberg went about his search by typing into Google the word cancer. Thrown back at him were more than 250 million results. Overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and misinformation, Sieberg sifted and sorted through everything that faced him -- and he narrowed down the results to his favorite five.

Sieberg is right on with his picks, and while I personally would have included The Cancer Blog as a source loaded with accurate, reliable, and inspiring information, I still commend Sieberg for so effectively hunting down some very good cancer resources. For what it's worth, I happen to highly recommend them myself.

American Cancer Society
National Cancer Institute
WebMD
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Leroy Sievers Blog

The overall cure rate for the 20,000 children diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year is more than 75 percent. Sounds good -- especially when 50 years ago, most children diagnosed with cancer died. But considering that only one in three childhood cancer survivors remain healthy, perhaps this is not such good news.

Thirty years after diagnosis, about 40 percent of survivors have a serious health problem and one-third have multiple problems. Strokes, heart disease, and kidney failure are just a few of the major health concerns that plague many survivors who have entered adulthood.

Doctors have long known that cancer treatments can cause new cancers later in life. But the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study -- the largest ever childhood study of its kind -- shows there are other long-term health problems. Researchers studied 10,000 survivors -- past studies examined 200-300 survivors -- and found these survivors were eight times as likely as their siblings to develop severe and life-threatening conditions. They found survivors of bone tumors, nerve and brain cancer, and Hodgkin's disease faced the highest risk.

The source of these later-in-life health problems vary. Kidney failure may result from damage caused by chemotherapy or radiation or the infections children suffer when their immune systems are weakened. Drugs used to treat infections may also be to blame. Strokes may result from head and chest radiation.

Cancer treatment for people of all ages comes with a price. We buy time, we buy life in exchange for the unknown. But for children -- who stand to live longer than adults -- there is a greater unknown. Sadly, there is a dark side to surviving cancer.

Parents may want to save their kids' baby teeth for more than just nostalgic reasons -- they may want to save them because they are rich in stem cells and the pulp tissue could provide the means to treatment for injuries and disease. BioEden Inc. is a new company out of Austin, Texas pioneering this effort that is so new some doubt science will ever catch up with the expectations of this firm. But President Jeff Johnson says all evidence indicates that baby teeth are a wonderful source of stem cells -- cells that doctors and researchers pursue for their capability of replicating and morphing into specialized cells that can be used to repair the body. Experts think baby teeth stem cells might one day be used for bone, teeth, and even nerve cell regeneration which could hold potential for spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Parents may find brochures in their dentist offices featuring the benefits of banking their children's teeth once they fall out. And pursuing tooth banking is no different than pursuing any other dental procedure. There are fees involved, of course -- banking fees and perhaps referral fees from dental offices -- and other considerations that each parent must weigh. Dr. Phil Hunke, president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and pediatric dentist for 32 years, says the idea of removing cells and freezing them holds true promise -- and he may want to bank the tooth of a child or grandchild once he learns more. Dr. Kevin Donly, a professor of pediatric dentistry, says he sees some potential but will not be banking teeth for his three little boys. He just doesn't think he's at the point where it's necessary. Another pediatric dentist -- Dr. John Updyke -- believes that if money were not an issue, all parents should bank their kids' teeth. But many young families can't afford the initial $595 and the $89 annual storage cost it requires. And without a solid scientific backing, tooth banking might not come up as a priority for many when it may take 10 years or more to even determine how useful these specific stem cells will be.