The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) defines a "disease cluster" as an unusually large number of people sickened by a disease in a certain place and time. Toxic exposure by industrial activity is usually suspected or blamed. Along with the National Disease Clusters Alliance, NRDC reported in 2011 that it had identified 42 disease clusters in 13 U.S. states.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) defines a disease cluster as “an unusually large number of people sickened by a disease in a certain place and time.” The organization, along with the National Disease Clusters Alliance (NDCA), reported in March 2011 that it had identified 42 disease clusters throughout 13 U.S. states: Texas, California, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas, all chosen for analysis, states the report, “based on the occurrence of known clusters in the state, geographic diversity, or community concerns about a disease cluster in their area.”

State and local health departments respond to some 1,000 inquiries per year about suspected disease clusters, though less than 15 percent turn out to be “statistically significant.” Epidemiologists explain that true cancer clusters typically involve one type of disease only, a rare type of cancer, or an illness not usually found in a specific age group.

A classic example of a disease cluster is in Anniston, Alabama, where residents experienced cancerous, non-cancerous, thyroid and neurodevelopment effects that they believe were caused by releases of various chemicals, including PCBs. The culprit: a nearby Monsanto-owned chemical maker, according to NDCA. And, indeed, a 2003 study in and around Anniston by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry did find that one in five locals had elevated PCB levels in their blood.

Clusters are controversial “in part because our scientific criteria for proving that exposure A caused disease B…are extremely difficult to meet,” says Donna Jackson Nakazawa, author of The Autoimmune Epidemic. “People move, or die, or their disease is never properly diagnosed. How can we prove, with all these variables, that a toxic exposure in an area caused a group of people to fall ill with a specific set of diseases?” Nakazawa is hardly skeptical about the existence of disease clusters. She is part of a growing chorus of voices calling on the government to not only remediate existing sites but to also prevent disease clusters in the first place by developing more stringent standards regarding chemical usage and disposal.

“European environmental policy uses the precautionary principle—an approach to public health that underscores preventing harm to human health before it happens,” Nakazawa reports. In 2007 the European Union implemented legislation that forces companies to develop safety data on 30,000 chemicals over a decade, and places responsibility on the chemical industry to demonstrate the safety of their products. “America lags far behind, without any precautionary guidelines regarding chemical use,” adds Nakazawa.

NRDC says “there is a need for better documentation and investigation of disease clusters to identify and address possible causes.” Armed with better data, advocates for more stringent controls on chemicals could have a better chance of convincing Congress to reform the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act of 1975 and bring more recent knowledge about chemical exposures to bear in setting safer standards.

CONTACT: NRDC report.

Tony Iommi, guitarist in the legendary Black Sabbath, was diagnosed with cancer, made public as of Monday. According to a statement released on his website, he “has been diagnosed with the early stages of lymphoma,” but “Iommi is currently working with his doctors to establish the best treatment plan–the “IRON MAN” of Rock & Roll remains upbeat and determined to make a full and successful recovery.”

Iommi’s bandmates have been supportive, asking everyone to “send positive vibes to the guitarist at this time”, and are joining Iommi in the UK.

The band announced in November the plans for their summer world tour and the September release of their first album together since 1978′s “Never Say Die!”

Iommi released a message on Friday expressing his gratitude for the support he has received, adding on a positive note “Well it’s not what I wanted for Christmas, that’s for sure, but now I can’t wait for the test results to come in and get going with the treatment.”

Although there is no definitive proof, many studies seem to indicate that consumption of onions, garlic and other members of the allium family (leeks, shallots and chives) reduces the risk of certain cancers. (Thinkstock)

Natural healers have extolled the cancer-preventing virtues of garlic and onions for years, but only recently do we have enough scientific research to draw some conclusions. Several animal studies showing promising results using garlic and other members of the allium family (onions, leek, shallot, and chive) to prevent tumors have led to hundreds of studies involving human garlic eaters. While it is near impossible to pinpoint a direct link between garlic consumption and cancer prevention, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reports that “several population studies show an association between increased intake of garlic and reduced risk of certain cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon, esophagus, pancreas, and breast.”

To wit, a multi-year study of 25,000 people from Switzerland and Italy found that those who ate the most garlic and onions were up to 88 percent less likely to develop various types of cancer (including cancers of the esophagus, mouth, throat, colon, breast, ovary, prostate and kidney) than those who said they ate little or none. “High onion intake, for example, was associated with a 56 percent lower risk of colon cancer and a 25 percent lower risk of breast cancer compared to no onion intake,” reports Karen Collins of the non-profit American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR).

According to Collins, another study found a 32 percent lower colon cancer risk among Iowan women who ate at least one garlic clove a week compared to others who ate one once a month or less, while an analysis of several studies worldwide “linked a 31 percent lower risk of colon cancer with consumption of about four to five cloves of garlic weekly.” And the results of several studies conducted in China show that that those who eat five cloves of garlic a week are half as likely to develop stomach cancers than non-garlic-eaters. Meanwhile, AICR reports that isolated components of garlic have shown the ability to slow or stop the growth of tumors in prostate, bladder, colon, and stomach tissue.

Just how do allium plants prevent cancer? “Like many vegetables, onions and garlic contain antioxidants that can block highly reactive free radicals from damaging cell DNA and starting the cancer process,” reports Collins. “Laboratory studies have shown that onion and garlic compounds can increase enzymes that deactivate carcinogens in the body, enhancing our ability to eliminate carcinogens before they do any damage.”

Some researchers, however, say that study limitations—that is, the accuracy of reported amounts and frequency of garlic consumed and the inability to compare data from studies that used different garlic products and amounts—make a definitive declaration on the topic unlikely anytime soon. And without such definitive conclusive proof of a causal link, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow food purveyors to state the health benefits of the garlic in their products on their labels.

NCI would like to see better-designed human dietary studies using predetermined amounts of garlic to discern potentially effective intakes as well as more studies directly comparing various garlic preparations. “Given this protective potential, the challenge now is to identify amounts that will provide optimal effects,” says Collins. In the meantime, don’t skimp on the garlic and onions.

CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Institute for Cancer Research, www.aicr.org.

Most researchers now agree that environmental factors -­ including exposure to chemicals and pollution -­ play a significant role today in determining who gets cancer and who doesn't. (Thinkstock)

With the World Health Organization hinting that cancer could unseat heart disease as the leading cause of death around the world, it’s no surprise that per capita cancer incidence is on the rise globally. In fact, cancer is the only major cause of death that has continued to rise since 1900. While it might depend on whom you ask, most researchers now agree that environmental factors—including exposure to chemicals and pollution—play a significant role today in determining who gets cancer and who doesn’t.

A blue ribbon panel of cancer experts initially convened by President George W. Bush researched hundreds of studies and concluded in 2010 (in its 240-page report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”) that our exposure to chemicals, pollution and radiation is to blame for the uptick in cancer deaths. “The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures,” the panel reported. “With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action.”

The panel cited grim statistics about cancer’s march, noting that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, with 21 percent likely to die from it. Cancer researchers fear that our reliance on chemicals is the main culprit, as borne out by hundreds of studies.

To wit, a 2000 study involving the examination of health records of more than 44,000 pairs of twins across Scandinavia found that “inherited genetic factors make a minor contribution” in causing most cancers but that “the environment has the principle role in causing sporadic cancer.” A 2010 UK study, whereby researchers investigated the level of chemical exposure of more than 1,100 women during their employment history, found that those study subjects who had been exposed to various industrial chemicals and airborne hydrocarbons were at least three times more likely to get breast cancer later on than women with little or no exposure in their backgrounds.

Not everyone agrees. Writing in Forbes magazine, Henry I. Miller and Elizabeth Whelan of the industry-friendly American Council on Science and Health argue that the findings of the presidential panel are based on politics not science: “If the authors had only bothered to consult a standard textbook on cancer epidemiology, they would have learned that lifestyle factors such as smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption and overexposure to sunlight—not chemicals in air, water and food—are the underlying causes of most preventable human cancers.”

While few today would doubt the health risks of such personal lifestyle factors, the President’s cancer panel nevertheless concluded that “the burgeoning number and complexity of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compel us to act to protect public health,” and urged President Obama to use the power of his office to “remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

CONTACTS: President’s Cancer Panel, deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/; American Council on Science and Health, www.acsh.org.

Researchers have found no direct links between diet sodas and specific human health problems. Initial reports that implicated aspartame, widely use to sweeten diet sodas, in a wide range of human health problems including cancer turned out to be false -- though certainly much healthier beverage choices abound. (Media credit/julesreyes via Flickr)

While rumors have circulated for years that diet sodas are unhealthy, researchers have found no direct links between such drinks and specific human health problems. Aspartame (also known as NutraSweet) is the sugar-alternative of choice for most diet soda makers. It’s 180 times sweeter than sugar but contains no significant calories and does not promote tooth decay. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved aspartame in 1974, though health advocates held up its widespread use for over a decade.

Over half of Americans consume aspartame regularly in soda and other foods—all told, diet varieties accounted for some 29 percent of the soft drink market for the top 10 sodas in 2010, according to Beverage Digest—so it is certainly reasonable to be concerned about any potential health effects. However, initial reports that implicated aspartame in seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity and even cancer turned out to be false (even a hoax), according to a wide range of reputable, peer-reviewed studies and clinical and epidemiological research.

Another concern that has been voiced about aspartame is that it produces methanol when metabolized, which converts to formaldehyde (and then formic acid) in the body. But studies have shown that the amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in natural sources such as fruit juices, citrus fruits and some fermented beverages, and that the amount of formaldehyde generated is also small compared to that produced routinely by the body from other foods and drugs.

While aspartame and diet sodas have not been linked directly to specific health problems, researchers who surveyed the eating, drinking, smoking and exercise habits of some 2,500 New Yorkers between 2003 and 2010 did find that those who drank at least one diet soda per day had a 61 percent higher risk of so-called vascular events (e.g. heart attack or stroke) than those who avoided Diet Coke and other products with aspartame. “If our results are confirmed with future studies, then it would suggest that diet soda may not be the optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages for protection against vascular outcomes,” reported the study’s lead author, Hannah Gardener of the University of Miami School of Medicine.

But others say that such a finding constitutes a link, not proof of cause and effect—and that those who have switched to diet sodas may be replacing the calories they used to get from regular sodas with other unhealthy foods that may be increasing their risk of heart attack or stroke.

The takeaway should be that those who drink soda regularly, diet or otherwise, should be sure to exercise and eat right otherwise. Or, better yet…give up the soda entirely. According to Katherine Zeratsky, a nutritionist with the Mayo Clinic, healthier choices abound. She suggests starting off the day with a glass of 100 percent fruit juice and then drinking skim milk with meals. “Sip water throughout the day,” she recommends. “For variety, try sparkling water or add a squirt of lemon or cranberry juice to your water.”

CONTACTS: “Miller School Researchers Link Diet Soda and Salt to Cardiovascular Risk,” www.med.miami.edu/news/miller-school-researchers-link-diet-soda-and-salt-to-cardiovascular-risk.

With the way that “50/50″ expertly blends comedy and heart, one would think that Judd Apatow had a hand in making the film – a notion that might seem confirmed by Seth Rogen’s co-starring role. But instead, Rogen is going this one alone, bringing to the screen a true story based on his real-life friend’s battle with cancer. The result is a funny, charming and surprisingly touching film that provides an intriguing look at one man’s fight against cancer.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays straight-laced Adam, a healthy guy who doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, doesn’t do drugs, and even recycles. As he jogs through the opening credits of the film, being sick is certainly the last thing on Adam’s mind. More likely on his mind is the fact that he has to get a ride to work every morning from his rough-around-the edges buddy Kyle (Rogen). But when Adam starts having back pain and finally gets it checked out by the doctor, he’s dumbstruck by the news that he has cancer.

At first, Adam takes everything in stride. Without any physical symptoms from the cancer and the effects of the chemo having yet to set in, things seem alright. He and Kyle share plenty of laughs and even succeed in using Adam’s cancer to pick up some girls at a bar. But as Adam’s chemotherapy continues and he begins to feel the effects, things go downhill fast. Suddenly his life is falling apart around him, and he suddenly realizes that he might not make it through this.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen share a convincing bro-mance in 50/50

As expected, Gordon-Levitt gives a moving performance that makes it easy to grow attached to lovable good-guy Adam. And although Rogen plays his typical foul-mouthed, slobby stoner character, it really works for this film. Kyle’s spontaneous and pot-ridden lifestyle perfectly balances out Adam’s by-the-book demeanor. Watching them clash provides plenty of laughs, but there is also a very real bro-mantic chemistry between Rogen and Gordon-Levitt that makes the dramatic second half of the film that much more moving.

With “50/50,” Rogen has somehow managed to skillfully combine a buddy comedy with a heartfelt drama in a way that gives you the best out of both genres. This film tackles a difficult subject in a new way and manages to leave you with a warm feeling by the end. Not to mention that it’s a refreshing departure from some of Rogen’s previous films. This one is certainly worth a look.

Andy Whitfield at the Spartacus: Blood and Sand Press Conference at The Four Seasons Hotel on July 21 in Beverly Hills, California. (WireImage)

Australian actor Andy Whitfield died on Sunday after a recurrence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He was 39.

Blast reported almost exactly a year ago that Whitfield would leave the his show, the Starz series “Spartacus: Blood and Sand” before the second season after his cancer returned.

He underwent an aggressive treatment last year and had been out of the public eye for much of the past 13 months.

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Andy Whitfield,” said Starz President and CEO Chris Albrecht in a statement.

A brave new world known as “green chemistry” seeks to reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, use and disposal of products. (Thinkstock)

Researchers today are beginning to question the safety of many chemicals used in consumer products. Studies have linked Bisphenol A (BPA), flame retardants, phthalates and many other chemicals found in everyday products to a wide range of health problems, including cancer, learning and behavioral problems and reproductive illnesses.

Despite the federal government’s slowness in calling for it, nonprofit labs and for-profit companies alike have been busy developing safer alternatives to some of these harsher chemicals. The brave new world of “green chemistry,” in which reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances is top priority in the design, use and disposal of products, is leading to a rash of new, safer ingredients.

Companies looking to put a “BPA-free” sticker on their bottles, for instance, can make them instead with Eastman Tritan copolyester, a plastic alternative that doesn’t disrupt hormones as Nalgene and CamelBak do. Phthalates—used to soften plastic toys—can be replaced with a product called Grindsted Soft-N-Safe, made from acetic acid and castor oil from the castor plant. Formaldehyde adhesives used to make plywood and other wood products can be replaced with soy-based resins, wood fibers and plastic-wood fibers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the effort through its sponsorship of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. The annual awards program recognizes and helps fund efforts to reduce the amount of hazardous substances released into the environment or entering the waste stream, and efforts that reduce the public health hazards associated with the release of such substances.

But while the EPA has the power to spur green chemistry, it is powerless to ban many dangerous chemicals in widespread use. The 1976 law that still governs use of many chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), presumes that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. TSCA has failed to require basic testing for the toxicity of some 62,000 chemicals grandfathered in when the law was first passed.

“Once thought to pose little likelihood of exposure, we now know many chemicals migrate from the materials and products in which they’re used—including furniture, plastics and food cans—into our bodies,” reports the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign. The campaign warns that just about every American carries hundreds of these chemicals in their bloodstreams.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently introduced a bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, aimed at overhauling the outdated TSCA. It would require safety testing of all existing chemicals and would promote so-called green chemistry and the development of safe alternatives to unsafe chemicals. The Act would provide the EPA with the authority it needs to protect public health, while enabling the marketplace to innovate safe products, reports Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund. The bill’s sponsors say it expects to have widespread support on both sides of the partisan divide.

CONTACTS: Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, www.epa.gov/gcc/pubs/pgcc/presgcc.html; Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, www.saferchemicals.org; Environmental Defense Fund, www.edf.org.

It might feel nice to kick up your feet and unwind by watching TV after work or to relax by the pool all day, but a sedentary lifestyle can be just as bad for your health as smoking, according to recent research.

Dr. David Coven, a cardiologist at New York’s St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, told CBS.com San Francisco earlier this month that “Smoking certainly is a major cardiovascular risk factor and sitting can be equivalent in many cases.” Coven added that according to several new studies, a sedentary lifestyle is linked to the increased risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer and premature death.

According to exercise science expert Steven Blair, as quoted in Science Daily, as many as 50 million Americans live a sedentary lifestyle. Not surprisingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than two-thirds of Americans are overweight and a third are obese.

Callie Durbrow, a personal trainer at Durbrow Performance Training in Cambridge, Mass., says, “It’s all an unfortunate chain of events: sedentary lifestyle leads to obesity, which, in turn, is a well known factor in heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer.” She adds that not getting enough exercise is a “recipe for disaster.”

So what can you do to get active if your day revolves around sitting at a desk at work and sitting in the car during your commute? Sneak “mini-workouts” in, says Durbrow. Durbrow recommends getting at least 30 minutes of “moderately intensive” physical activity five days a week.

“Finding time to exercise–maybe before or after work or during the lunch hour–can literally be a real life saver,” she says.

Here’s what you can do:

Take the stairs, and make this mini-workout session even more effective by running up and down instead of walking. “If you do it several times a day, every day, it’ll add up,” says Durbrow.

Get out and walk briskly, enough to get your heart rate up, instead of driving short distances.

Try to use your free time for exercise instead of watching TV or surfing the Web. “If you finally have a bit of free time, use it for some form of physical activity, not to sit around some more,” she says.

A long term study is underway that will track the cell phone usage of 250,000 cell phone users between the ages of 18 and 69 over three decades. In addition to looking for cancer links, the study will be on the lookout for links to neurological diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. (Pink Sherbert Photography via Flickr)

Cell phones have only been in widespread use for a couple of decades, which is far too short a time for us to know conclusively whether or not using them could cause cancer. Research thus far appears to indicate that most of us have little if anything to worry about.

According to the federally funded National Cancer Institute, the low-frequency electromagnetic radiation that cell phones give off when we hold them up to our heads is “non-ionizing,” meaning it cannot cause significant human tissue heating or body temperature increases that could lead to direct damage to cellular DNA. By contrast, X-rays consist of high-frequency ionizing electromagnetic radiation and can lead to the kind of cellular damage resulting in cancer. Nonetheless, some cell phone users and researchers still worry about our cell phone usage, given how much we now use them and how little we know about their potential long-term effects.

The reason the issue keeps coming up is that some initial studies in Europe, where cell phone usage caught on a decade before the U.S., showed links between some forms of tumors and heavy cell phone usage. As a result, researchers teamed up to do a more definitive study, called the “Interphone” study, across 13 countries between 2000 and 2004. The results, published in May 2010 in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, indicated no increased risk of developing two of the most common types of brain tumors, glioma and meningioma, from typical everyday cell phone usage. Study participants who reported spending the most time on their phones showed a slightly increased risk of developing gliomas, but researchers considered this finding inconclusive due to factors such as recall bias, whereby participants with brain tumors may have simply remembered past cell phone use differently from healthy respondents.

Researchers looking to get past the relatively short timing window and the recall bias issues of the Interphone study recently launched a longer term study, dubbed COSMOS (short for Cohort Study on Mobile Communications), in Europe. Some 250,000 cell phone users between the ages of 18 and 69 and located in Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark will participate by allowing researchers to track their cell phone usage and health over three decades. According to an April 22, 2010 article in Reuters, the study will factor in the use of hands-free devices and how people carry their phones and will also be on the lookout for links to neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

There are some precautions you can take to minimize whatever risk may exist. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) suggests reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone isn’t available. Also, using a hands-free device places more distance between the phone and your head, significantly reducing the amount of radiation exposure. If the fact that many states require hands-free devices for using a cell phone while driving isn’t enough to make you go out and spend the extra money on such an accessory, maybe the cancer risk, perceived or real, will.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health announced Tuesday that the risk of heart attack hospitalization dropped by 46 percent among MassHealth members who used a smoking cessation program provided by the state, according to a new study published in the online journal PLos Medicine.

The dramatic decline was evident in the first year after use of the benefit. The risk of hospitalization for other acute coronary heart disease diagnoses dropped by 49 percent in the first year after use of the benefit.

“These dramatic results demonstrate how the Commonwealth’s health care reform efforts have made a difference in just a short amount of time,” said Governor Deval Patrick, in a statement. “By making a comprehensive smoking cessation benefit available to MassHealth members, we have significantly reduced the number of expensive hospitalizations — helping people lead healthier lives and saving taxpayer dollars.”

This is the first time the health effect of the MassHealth smoking cessation benefit has been analyzed in such depth, DPH said Tuesday. In the first two and a half years of the benefit, over 75,000 MassHealth members used it to try to quit smoking, comprising 40 percent of all smokers on MassHealth, a state health insurance program.

“This study demonstrates that the Commonwealth’s efforts to help people quit smoking are a sound investment,” said Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby. “It’s clear that MassHealth’s smoking cessation benefit has had a very real, positive health impact for people across the state, while at the same time lowering health care costs.”

Experts agree that smoking is the leading preventable cause of sickness and death. More than 8,000 Massachusetts residents die every year from the effects of smoking, and tobacco use is associated with $4.3 billion in excess health care costs in Massachusetts each year.

Furthermore, in Massachusetts, 77 percent of adult cigarette smokers say they want to quit, 60 percent of smokers have tried to quit within the past year, and 44 percent report that they plan to try to quit in the next 30 days.

The report is available online at: plosmedicine.org.

Elizabeth Edwards arrives at Stand Up To Cancer held at Sony Pictures Studios on September 10 in Culver City, Calif. (WireImage)

Elizabeth Edwards, the estranged wife of disgraced former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, has ceased her treatment for cancer after being told by doctors that further efforts to treat here would have no effect.

She is said to be resting with her family and friends at her side.

Edwards sent the following message to well-wishers via Facebook:

“You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces – my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human.

“But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.”

Actor Michael Douglas, who announced his stage 4 throat cancer diagnoses, told The Hollywood Reporter that he’s been gearing up for his next role for a film “Liberace,” whose shooting will start in May or June.

He told the source, “I’ve got a bunch of tapes of performances. I’m thinking; I’m a blank slate. Everything shows me he was a lovely man; I just want to reconfirm that.”

Douglas will have a PET scan to see if his tumor has been eliminated in January.

The actor also said regarding his cancer, “Religion has certainly been shoved down my throat. I believe there is a spirit within us, which we nurture based upon our efforts and what we bring to the world. But it doesn’t come from the outside; it comes from the inside.”

He added, “I haven’t really digested it yet, truth be told. As I looked through the stats, I didn’t think of this as life and death; I just saw it as an illness to get over. So I didn’t dig into the bottom of my soul to see what I could see. It certainly has put a little perspective on mortality, obviously. I’ve been overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and support. Cancer has shown me what family is. It showed me a love that I never knew really existed.”

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental factors could be playing a role in the increasing number of prostate cancer cases in the U.S. and elsewhere? – Joshua Gordon, New York, NY

Prostate cancer is a growing problem for men in the U.S. as well as in other developed nations around the world. Some 40,000 American men lose their battle with prostate cancer every year—the only cancer more deadly for U.S. men is skin cancer. Age is the primary “risk factor” for developing prostate cancer. One out of every six American men over the age of 40 will develop prostate cancer, while four out of five over 80 years old will get it. Of course, genes also play a big role. The American Cancer Society reports that a man’s prostate cancer risk doubles if his father or brother has suffered from the disease. Researchers believe a genetic predisposition accounts for as many as 10 percent of all cases of the disease in the U.S.

Beyond age and genetics, though, environmental factors do likely play a role. WebMD reports, for instance, that prostate cancer occurs about 60 percent more often in African American men than in white American men, and when diagnosed is more likely to be advanced. But interestingly enough, prostate cancer rates for African men living in their native countries are much lower. When native Africans immigrate to the U.S., however, prostate cancer rates increase sharply.

According to WebMD, the reason for these differences are not fully understood, but an environmental connection—possibly related to high-fat diets, less exposure to the sun, exposure to heavy metals, infectious agents, or smoking—might be to blame. Some new research suggests that a switch to a diet high in fat could be a significant contributing factor in these cases. “The disease is much more common in countries where meat and dairy products are dietary staples,” adds WebMD.

The take-away for men concerned about prostate health is to eat healthier. Several studies suggest that a diet high in lycopene (an antioxidant found in high levels in tomatoes, pink grapefruit, watermelon and some other fruits and veggies) could lower an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer significantly.

Researchers have also found links between other environmental factors and prostate cancer. Dr. Matthew Schmitz, a prostate cancer specialist at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital and the prostate cancer “guide” at About.com, reports that exposure to high levels of cadmium (a naturally occurring element used in industrial processes and present in cigarette smoke) as well as dioxins (chemicals widely used in herbicides and other applications) have been linked to increased prostate cancer risk. Other researchers have noticed that men who take calcium supplements and multi-vitamins regularly may be at higher risk. Schmitz says that more research is needed to learn how risky such exposures really are.

For those who do get prostate cancer, some promising new treatments will be undergoing clinical trials soon. Dr. Marianne Sadar of the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, Canada, has used an experimental drug adapted from sea sponges to shrink cancer tumors in mice. It will be a year before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits trials of the new drug on humans, but prostate patients and their doctors are holding out hope that this and other new treatments can obviate the need for many surgeries.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; WebMD, www.webmd.com; About.com, www.about.com; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Given the environmental and economic benefits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a federal law mandating recycling nationwide? – N. Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Today, Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually (Media credit/Tom Magliery via Flickr)

The U.S. government has historically relied on state and local governments to handle waste management in all of its forms, including recycling. Although there have been a few attempts to push legislation through Congress to mandate minimum national recycling rates, none have made it out of committee hearings. Federal lawmakers are loathe to take waste management regulatory powers away from individual states which have vastly different needs from one another. For instance, less populous western states with lots of extra land for siting landfills might not be as inclined to push for higher recycling rates as those crowded eastern states with less room to store their trash.

According to Chaz Miller, Director of State Programs at the National Solid Wastes Management Association, America’s very first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act—itself an amendment to the original Clean Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven years later, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller. RCRA abolished open dumps and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations for hazardous waste management, but had little to say about recycling except to call for an increase in federal purchases of products made with recycled content. The EPA also published manuals and workshops on implementing curbside recycling programs, although funding for such programs dried up by 1981.

Nevertheless, the seed had taken root. Pioneering programs in Massachusetts and elsewhere led to the development of curbside recycling programs in more than 600 municipalities throughout the U.S.—mostly in the Northeast and on the West Coast—by the mid-1980s. In addition, 10 states introduced “bottle bill” laws to encourage recycling of beer and soft drink containers. Two states, Rhode Island and New Jersey, both being small, densely populated and short on landfill space, implemented comprehensive approaches to recycling. They began requiring local jurisdictions to pick-up residents’ and businesses’ paper, metal and glass, and helped towns and cities set-up systems for pick-up, sorting and materials recovery. Most of the 8,600-plus municipal recycling programs in existence today are modeled on these early efforts.

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Multi-material and curbside collection programs were non-existent, paper was only collected sporadically when a local scout troop or similar group organized a paper drive, and family-owned scrap dealers would occasionally buy paper and metal scrap based on limited market demand for additional raw materials.

Today, the EPA estimates that Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually. While it still has no federal platform for doing so, the EPA, through its Resource Conservation Challenge program, is pushing for Americans to up that rate. Forty-two states now have their own recycling or waste diversion goals, and 18 are trying to divert upwards of half their waste via recycling or composting.
CONTACTS: National Solid Wastes Management Association, www.environmentalistseveryday.org; EPA Resource Conservation Challenge, www.epa.gov/osw/rcc.

Ignorance doesn’t exist anymore. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. By now we’ve all seen the TV and magazine ads and read the surgeon general’s warning. We all know someone who’s gotten cancer.

Still, 1 in 5 American adults continues to smoke cigarettes and 40 percent of nonsmokers were exposed to secondhand smoke during 2007-2008, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Most disturbing: nearly all (98 percent) children who live with a smoker are exposed and have measurable levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies from cigarette smoke.

The CDC says that smoking rates dropped from 2000 through 2005. But since then, the rate has remained constant at about 20 percent.

Of note:

• In 2009, more men (nearly 24 percent) than women (about 18 percent) smoked.
• Smoking remains prevalent among the poor, as 31 percent of those living below the poverty line are smokers.
• Less than 6 percent of adults with a graduate degree smoke, but 25 percent of adults with no high school diploma smoke.

“Smoking is still the leading preventable cause of death in this country,” said CDC Director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden.  ”But progress is possible. Strong state laws that protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, higher cigarette prices, aggressive ad campaigns that show the human impact of smoking and well-funded tobacco control programs decrease the number of adult smokers and save lives.”

Last year, Mormon-heavy Utah had the lowest rates of smoking, followed by California. California has had strict tobacco laws for years. Adult smoking in California declined by about 40 percent during 1998-2006, and as a result lung cancer in California has been declining four times faster than in the rest of the nation, according to the report.

And if you need a subtle reminder from the CDC: “Smoking causes cancers of the lung, mouth, stomach, pancreas, kidney, colon, cervix, bladder and leukemia, as well as heart attacks, stroke, blindness, pneumonia, emphysema and other lung diseases, and many other health problems. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome and low birth weight, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, exacerbated asthma, respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function in children. It also causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.”

Andy Whitfield at the Spartacus: Blood and Sand Press Conference at The Four Seasons Hotel on July 21 in Beverly Hills, California. (WireImage)

Series lead Andy Whitfield will not return to the Starz series “Spartacus: Blood and Sand” for the show’s second season because of a recurrence of cancer.

Whitfield has battled non-Hodkin’s lymphoma, and the recurrence will require aggressive treatment, Starz said in a statement.

“It’s with a deep sense of disappointment that I must step aside from such an exceptional project as Spartacus and all the wonderful people involved,” said the 36-year-old Australian actor in a statement. “It seems that it is time for myself and my family to embark on another extraordinary journey.”

The story broke in March that the actor was diagnosed.

Take a look at Stacy Lyons’ Facebook profile — she describes herself as "The girl that loves to have fun and make you smile. The one who makes friends with anyone willing to laugh with her, who cherishes all nights that will forever remain with her and shaped the person that she has become. The girl who knows that no matter how bad things can get, she’s got the people that matter most to her to lean on and make her smile."

This vibrant, funny and unwaveringly positive 26-year-old woman has been diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of ovarian cancer.

Doctors have given her no more than two to three years to live, but Stacy, along with her friends and family, are confident she can overcome this illness.

A rally was held for Stacy on August 12 at Firefly’s in Marlborough to raise money for the cost of Stacy’s treatment. The night featured music, hors d’oeuvres and a variety of items up for raffle.

With over 500 people it was great to see family, friends, and supporters come out for one cause.

If you were unable to attend the event, but would like to make a direct contribution, checks can be addressed to:

Stacy Lyons Benefit Foundation
c/o Justine Willard
51 Gloucester Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02115

or online through PayPal

If you’d like any additional information about Stacy or the benefit, feel free to e-mail them at SMLBenefitFoundation@gmail.com.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Forget all you heard about Vitamin D from the sun’s rays — the sun is not your friend, folks.

Tanning is not good for you, and sunscreen is your very best friend.

OK, so you think we’re crazy, but doctors and decades of research don’t lie. The sun is your skin’s worst enemy. Ultra violet rays are extremely harmful to your health many ways. Doctors at the Academy of Dermatology Convention in Miami cannot emphasize this enough: there is no such thing as a safe or healthy tan.

"There are two types of rays that you are exposed to," says Dr. Dale Isaacson, "UVB rays that give you that instant burn, and UVA rays that generally lead to tanning and in the future, skin cancer."

Some skin cancer types are treatable and curable by removing the damaged cells, but some cancers are deadly. Melanoma is one of the deadliest types of skin cancer in the world, and millions die from it each year. It starts out looking like a bad mole, but extra sun exposure mutates it and turns it into cancer which can spread through your entire body.

"If you notice any of those symptoms, see a dermatologist immediately," said Dr. Isaacson.

The sun not only poses health risk, but it poses cosmetic ones too. Dr Marilyn Berzin treats people for sun exposure in as early as their late twenties.

"When you expose yourself to too much sun, it can seriously mutate your skin, but even worse, it can cause early wrinkling. I treat many young women who have premature wrinkles on their face, and they’re not even thirty."

Patients see Dr Berzin for laser resurfacing procedures and Botox injections to remove wrinkles. These procedures are often painful, but they are considered important in a youth driven society.

“If you want to stay young, stay out of the sun," says Dr. Berzin. "There is nothing wrong with being pale. And those of you who are naturally pale need to apply extra sunscreen protection."

The higher the SPF on your sunscreen, the greater protection. And make sure to re-apply it twice if you stay out in the sun too long.
Take it from a girl who is as pale as can be, your skin stays soft and smooth when you use a sunscreen moisturizer everyday. And don’t forget to put some on when its cloudy, you can get sun exposure then too. So think about all of this when you head out to tan on the beaches this season. Cover up.

I’m a man. As a man, I don’t have the right to tell a woman what to do about her own womanly health.

But I know one thing: Too many women die of breast cancer every year.

Now we have to hear so-called health experts tell women to wait until age 50 to get potentially life-saving mammograms? Those same experts are saying that self-examinations may be worthless.

The Boston Herald’s Margery Eagan got it best.

Statistically, it’s true that breast cancer rates skyrocket after age 50, but you don’t need to click this link to know that women under 50 get breast cancer. A 10-year-old girl got breast cancer this year in the US.

While we’re on the topic of numbers, we also know that children are going through puberty faster and faster over recent generations.

I understand that people are worried about false-positives among mammograms. It’s scary. It’s a science that we should be working to perfect, especially with today’s computer technology. But do you know what’s scarier? A dead mom. A dead wife.

Men will never have to experience a mammogram. We hear it’s unpleasant. We hear it can be painful. I understand it’s equal to 1,000 x-rays. I’m not saying every woman should be forced to undergo a test they don’t want, but if you’re a 35-year-old woman, and your mom died of breast cancer, you should be able to get any test you want, whenever you want, to ensure you don’t have to die, too.

It’s outrageous, and you shouldn’t be surprised when men are getting recommendations not to get their own “manly” cancer screenings before a certain age either.

Well, they came for the woman, and I’m not going to wait to let them come for me. Defaultly waiting until age 50 for a mammogram is awful advice that appears to be solely driven by money.

If you ask the average American for the best advice you can give your friends and family when it comes to cancer, you will almost certainly hear that screening and early detection are the best tools we have. And for the longest time, that’s what we’ve heard from our doctors and the media. But the times, they are a-changin’, and The American Cancer Society is reversing its long-supported position that frequent screenings will lead to fewer cancer deaths, especially in breast and prostate cancer.

Tumor growth is actually relatively common; however, most tumors are benign, and do not invasively grow further outward or take up residence in other locations. That process, known as metastasis, is the true killer in cancer, as the body becomes unable to fight off the multiple new tumors that begin to disrupt normal body function.

The ACS is now telling patients that we may be over-treating the less-threatening tumors, and in the process missing more-threatening cases.‚  Since advocating screening, the ACS acknowledges that cancer diagnoses have increased. However, for frequent screenings to actually prove beneficial to the public health, there should have been a corresponding decrease in cancer deaths. Instead, widespread screening has only led to an increase in the discovery and treatment of tumors that would have remained harmless and wouldn’t have required any intervention.

While screening has resulted in fewer late-stage cancer cases for colon and cervical cancers, unfortunately there’s no data to show that we’ve seen fewer deaths in breast and prostate cancers, and doctors are now worried that the public has been over-promised on the benefits of some cancer screens.

However, Colin Begg, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York told The Times that he’s worried that the message will confuse the public who will assume that all cancer screenings are unnecessary. “I am concerned that the complex view of a changing landscape will be distilled by the public into yet another “Ëœscreening does not work’ headline. The fact that population screening is no panacea does not mean that it is useless” he said.

For now, it will just take time for doctors and researchers to determine which tumors should be treated, and which, counter intuitively should be left alone. In the mean time, follow the advice of your doctor, whatever that might be.

(photo via)

BlastMagazine.com is proud to be sponsoring the Faulkner-Sagoff RUNWAY Gala on October 22 at the InterCOntinental Hotel here in Boston.

The RUNWAY Gala is a night of fashion and fundraising for one of the best causes of all — breast cancer care. So cue the music, lower the house lights, and join Blast as we are very proud to cover and be a part of a night of fashion supporting the Faulkner Hospital Faulker-Sagoff Centre.

Presented by Suffolk Healthcare, this exciting event will preview the works of Boston’s hottest up and coming young designers from the School of Fashion Design. Guests will vote for their favorite alongside celebrity judges, including TLC’s “A Makeover Story” coach Gretchen Monahan, “Project Runway” alums Emmett McCarthy and Kevin Christiana, jewelry designer Tonya Chen Mezrich and Boldfacers.com founder Lisa Pierpont.

The evening will honor Men with Heart, a group of men committed to fighting breast cancer. They are husbands, sons, fathers and brothers of women touched by breast cancer.

The Faulkner-Sagoff Breast Imaging and Diagnostic Centre provides a patient-centered approach to breast cancer detection and prevention, making it one of the leading centers for breast health care in New England and in the country. In the decades since its establishment in 1971, the Centre has cared for well over 100,000 women.

For even more information on the event, visit Faulkner Hospital’s website.

Cancer is a monolithic enemy of modern medicine. Because cancer is such a large, nebulous collection of loosely related diseases, scientists have found it difficult to pinpoint the specific causes of cancer, which is why you hear about something new causing cancer basically every day on the news.

While many of these discoveries are based on shoddy science, a recent study, which was actually rather elegant in design, has found that a lack of social interaction can lead to increased breast cancer tumor growth, indicating that social environment could play a role, along with environmental and genetic factors, in the determination of the severity of a cancer.

The study used genetically similar mice that are altered so that they develop mammary tumors. Mice were either housed alone or with other mice. The mice kept alone showed greater tumor growth than the mice housed together.

Scientifically, the researchers found higher stress hormone levels in the mice housed alone before there were even measurable changes in the tumor sizes. Even though the two groups of mice were genetically very similar, the stress hormones caused measurable changes in gene expression before there was even any indication that the tumors in the two groups were growing differently.

The researches point out hat they intend to focus further research on researching the specific cell types in which these genetic changes are occurring, and then targeting the pathways that connect the stress hormones to their detrimental effects rather than to suggest that cancer patients should maintain strong social contacts.

Either way, every new thing we learn about cancer is another tool in our arsenal to conquer the disease, and this is an interesting find that gives scientists a new avenue of research.

Image courtesy Flickr/Rick in Rio.

The Lockerbie bomber may be free, but he isn’t breathing easy. In fact, he may soon meet the same fate as the 270 innocent men and women he was convicted of killing in 1988.

News reports out of Tripoli, Libya suggest al-Megrahi’s prostate cancer is worsening. Video footage of the 57-year-old convicted killer shows the man breathing through an oxygen mask, his head tilted to the side, his family members by his bedside.

In the background a reporter can be heard asking al-Megrahi a question. He appears too weak to respond.

Libyan Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Mohammed Siala described al-Megrahi as a “dying man” according to AP.

Many questions have been raised regarding the seriousness of al-Megrahi’s condition. A video depicting him as an ailing man won’t put those theories to rest.

A London-based newspaper quoted al-Megrahi’s father as saying his son is not dying.

“I see he is improving day by day, and he is better than the day he returned” he told Asharq Al-Awssat newspaper.

Testing by Scottish officials is the only confirmation of al-Megrahi’s cancer, however now, to many, the testimony of Scottish officials is no longer sufficient because of the controversy surrounding the bomber’s release.

Many believe al-Megrahi’s release was made in order to facilitate an enormously lucrative oil deal with Libya. British Petroleum (BP) signed a $900 million oil search deal with Libya in 2007, but their progress has been repeatedly stalled by superfluous rules on equipment imports by Libyan officials.

British and Scottish authorities have both denied such a connection.

Due to illness and scheduling conflicts last night, I only caught the second half of the “Grey’s Anatomy” season finale when it first went live on air. Though I rewatched the entire two hour special this morning, I knew before Izzie went into surgery to remove her brain tumor that she would survive (albeit with some memory issues), I knew Bailey was facing divorce while she was giddy over “Leo,” and I knew George was going to be John Doe before he even enlisted for the army.

But after rewatching the second hour, and then rerewatching the last minute of the show several times, I came to a startling conclusion that contradicts everything I have said up until this point: I don’t want Izzie or George to die.

This revelation could come from several sources. Maybe it was the catch in Meredith’s voice when she said “Oh god!” and look of horror in her eyes when she realized John Doe was George. Maybe it was the beautiful moment when Izzie walked into the elevator dressed in her pretty pink prom dress in a reenactment of the season two finale, but the doors opened to find George waiting for her in full army garb. Or maybe it was the realization that, despite all my personal feelings against Katherine Heigl, “Grey’s” simply wouldn’t be “Grey’s” without Izzie and George.

There has been some debate after the final scene whether George and Izzie will actually end up being dead. For those who missed the culminating season five episodes, Derek was able to remove Izzie’s entire brain tumor and she had just recovered her memory when she coded in Alex’s arms while George turned out to be the John Doe who was hit by a bus saving a woman from a similar face and had his face smashed in beyond recognition. The show ended with a cliffhanger that did not definitively clarify whether both characters lived or died.

The elevator scene, which has recurred in various forms since the second season, symbolizes both characters’ deaths in this episode, but also suggests that Izzie and George are not dead yet. The elevator doors open and Izzie smiles at George in a “this is the way it’s supposed to be” kind of way. However, while the Chief ignores her Do-Not-Resuscitate and allows Bailey, Christina and Alex to try to bring Izzie back to life, Prom-Dress-Izzie has a worried look come over her face that George’s face mirrors. She does not step off the elevator to join George, which means that she is on the brink of death and the resuscitation revives her and she lives, or she could end up passing in to the great beyond in the season six premiere.

My guess is show creator Shonda Rhimes left this season open ended to see the fan response. She has been adamant this entire season that Katherine Heigl and T.R. Knight will not be leaving the show, so this feels like a way to gauge the fans’ response to Izzie and George’s “death” and see if people actually care if the two stay on the show. Not to toot my own horn, but I was unsurprised during my first viewing last night of Heigl and Knight’s seemingly tidy exits from the show. But after rewatching the episode this morning, I was surprised by how much I really did care especially about George. Plus, by killing off two major characters, “Grey’s” will become more of a soap opera than a primetime drama, and one “General Hospital” is more than enough.

Beyond the not-so-startling cliffhanger ending, there were some other great moments from the season five finale. Highest amongst those was the long awaited MerDer wedding. Signing their marriage contract on a borrowed blue Post-It that was placed in Meredith’s locker was the sweet and fitting wedding the couple deserved.

But even more than that was the realization that Dark-And-Twisty Meredith really is gone. Meredith slipped under my radar this season after Ellen Pompeo was overshadowed by the great characters of Callie, Bailey, Christina and Sloan, not to mention the season-long Izzie drama, but she reemerged this episode with Christina — and the rest of the audience — realizing that Meredith’s proclamation at the end of season four that she was “all whole and healed” was true. By finally marrying Derek and Meredith and by resolving both characters’ emotional dramas, it felt like Shonda’s way of tying a nice pretty bow on five seasons of serious ups and downs. Hopefully the couple will remain happy and that bow won’t be untied to create unnecessary drama. Sadly, MerDer has run its course.

The best character resolution this finale though was by far that of Christina Yang. Though her awkward declaration of “I love you” to Hunt was uncomfortable to watch, seeing her willingly play the role of Maid of Honor to Meredith when she found out MerDer was going to get married in City Hall and then hugging Meredith when all along they have not been “hugging people” showed how far both characters have come since season one. Christina has always been the somewhat cold, logical, ambitiously badass surgeon, so it’s nice to see she’s developed a softer side. It just gives Sandra Oh an even more fantastic character to play.

One character I wish wasn’t going to face serious emotional trauma is Miranda Bailey, who last season almost went through the dissolution of her marriage and, in a final-hour moment, turns out actually is going to be faced with divorce. Bailey has always been the strong and emotionally healthy doctor in the hospital, so when her seemingly happy marriage with husband Tucker was torn to shreds last season, the resulting unhappiness for one of the few remaining complete characters felt like the writers had gone too far. Bailey’s marital issues have been glossed over this season and the show is better for it. The fact she will be a single mother and have to give up the pediatric fellowship she fought for is sure to be heartbreaking season six drama.

And poor Alex Karev. He is a man I never want to see cry again (kind of like Ewan McGregor at the end of “Moulin Rouge”), but his admission to Izzie that they only got married because they both thought she was going to be dead in week was something I’m glad the writers allowed audience members to hear. Because that is what their marriage was. Could Alex and Izzie actually pull off a life of happiness? I don’t think so.

So now we have four months to wait until we find out if Izzie and George are really dead “" or less than that until we find out who signed on as a full-time cast member. My guess is that, unlike Isaiah Washington’s rapid exit, Heigl and Knight will return for the season six premiere and subsequent episodes, regardless of if their characters die or not. There will undoubtedly be magnificent, beautiful funerals to send of both beloved characters.

But both deaths don’t feel like they’re set in stone. So for those of you like me who don’t want Izzie and George to remain dead, make your voices heard to Shonda and the other “Grey’s” creators “" her responses on Twitter “Grey’s Anatomy” fan pages show that she is listening. And we all know they won’t be the first “Grey’s” characters to return from the dead.

What did you think of last night’s “Grey’s Anatomy” finale? Did you expect George to be John Doe? What about the Sloan and Lexie drama? Do you think George and Izzie will stay dead? Leave your thoughts below!

You can catch Grey’s on DirecTV with these direct SAT TV offers.

The BBC is reporting on a Nottingham University study that polled 800 men on how often they had sex or masturbated.

The result is scary: the more you want it the more likely you may be to get prostate cancer.

The study found that those subjects who were most sexually active at younger ages had more of a chance of developing cancer later in life. The researchers concluded that higher levels of sex hormones could lead to both the sex drive and the cancer.

So, it’s probably not the sex causing the cancer, but the hormones might give you both the drive and the disease.

“Hormones appear to play a key role in prostate cancer,” Dr Polyxeni Dimitropoulou, the study leader, told the BBC.

Prostate cancer is one of the leading health concerns among men. It’s the most common cancer in men in the UK, with over 30,000 new cases each year.

Standing under a blend of vivid stage lights, decked out in expressive clothing and listening to the buzz of the audience would seem like a surreal moment for most, but for her, it’s everyday.

Asha Mevlana, a soft-spoken violinist with a hint of rock n’ roll swagger, is living out her dream as a professional musician., but the decision to pursue a career in music came after passing a significant juncture in life.

In 2000, her friends gathered with food and wine and held a party that was meant to ease the awkwardness of the effects of chemotherapy. It was a hair cutting party. One by one, her friends cut off a piece of her hair until she was left nearly bald.

“I decided that the easiest way to accomplish this was to involve my friends in the process,” Mevlana wrote on her website.

At 24, Mevlana had breast cancer. While most of her peers were securing their futures, she was forced to confront the thought of dying and not having one.

In an instant, her aspirations of having a career in public relations were overshadowed. The feeling of invincibility vanished within minutes of hearing the upsetting diagnosis.

“It was as if I was in a daze,” she said.

The painful months of treatment began with a lumpectomy. She just didn’t fit the stereotype of most breast cancer patients. Even before reaching the major milestones in life, life-altering decisions had to be made. Choosing between different forms of medications and treatment centers was overwhelming. The varying opinions from doctors were not reassuring. Rather, the situation was made even more complicated.

The first treatment was particularly scary.

“As they prepared to inject me with the red AC, I became very scared and began shaking. Why was I letting someone inject poison into my body?” she wrote. “The nurse told me to think of it as an army of red soldiers going in to kill all the bad cells. Psychologically, this made it much easier to deal with.”

Mevlana turned to the Young Survivor’s Coalition (YSC) to find a group of women her age, going through the same ordeal. She explained they helped her find a “chemo buddy.” Along with friends and family, the YSC was another strong support system.

The four rounds of chemotherapy, followed by radiation, was an exhausting period of time, but the cancer cleared from her system. Gradually, the physical distress faded away, but the mental torment persisted. The fear of recurrence and consuming thought of cancer was difficult to handle.

Nonetheless, over time, this too subsided. When asked about her outlook on life now, she responded, “I feel lucky.”

This change in perspective prompted by her survival brought about the courage to pursue her lifelong ambition of becoming a violinist.

Ditching the corporate life in exchange for an electric violin, Asha, now passionately teaches and performs with a well known Australian band called Porcelain. Now, she spends most of her time on stage performing intricate violin riffs and has also been seen with various artists such as Gnarls Barkley and The Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Despite the success, she takes the time to share her story as its one that embodies courage and independence. This should be a beacon of hope for the thousands of young breast cancer patients.

Ashamevlana.com

Porcelain on MySpace

Dear EarthTalk: What is the impact of all the littering that individuals do, largely from their cars and on highways? What can I do to help clean it up? How can we strengthen laws to prevent it? — Won’t litter in Norwalk, CT

Environmentalists consider litter a nasty side effect of our convenience-oriented disposable culture. Just to highlight the scope of the problem, California alone spends $28 million a year cleaning up and removing litter along its roadways. And once trash gets free, wind and weather move it from streets and highways to parks and waterways. One study found that 18 percent of litter ends up in rivers, streams and oceans.

Cigarette butts, snack wrappers and take-out food and beverage containers are the most commonly littered items. Cigarettes are one of the most insidious forms of litter: Each discarded butt takes 12 years to break down, all the while leaching toxic elements such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into soil and waterways.

The burden of litter cleanup usually falls to local governments or community groups. Some U.S. states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, are taking strong measures to prevent litter through public education campaigns, and are spending millions of dollars yearly to clean up. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also have strong anti-litter campaigns.

Keep America Beautiful (KAB), the group known for its "crying Indian" anti-litter TV ads of bygone days, has been organizing litter clean-ups across the U.S. since 1953. KAB has a strong track record of success in litter prevention, though it has been accused of doing the bidding of its industry founders and supporters (which include tobacco and beverage companies) by opposing many mandatory bottle and can recycling initiatives over the years and downplaying the issue of litter from cigarettes. Nonetheless, 2.8 million KAB volunteers picked up 200 million pounds of litter in KAB’s annual Great American Clean-up last year.

A more grassroots-oriented litter prevention group is Auntie Litter, which started in 1990 in Alabama to help educate students there about the importance of a healthy and clean environment. Today the group works internationally to help students, teachers and parents eliminate litter in their communities.

In Canada, the nonprofit Pitch-In Canada (PIC), founded in the late-1960s by some hippies in British Columbia, has since evolved into a professionally run national organization with a tough anti-litter agenda. Last year 3.5 million Canadians volunteered in PIC’s annual nationwide Cleanup Week.

Doing your part to keep litter to a minimum is easy, but it takes vigilance. For starters, never let trash escape from your car, and make sure household garbage bins are sealed tightly so animals can’t get at the contents. Always remember to take your garbage with you upon leaving a park or other public space. And if you’re still smoking, isn’t saving the environment a compelling enough reason to finally quit? Also, if that stretch of roadway you drive everyday to work is a haven for litter, offer to clean it up and keep it clean. Many cities and towns welcome “Adopt-A-Mile” sponsors for particularly litter-prone streets and highways, and your employer might even want to get in on the act by paying you for your volunteer time.

CONTACTS: Keep America Beautiful, Auntie Litter, Pitch-In Canada.

Dear EarthTalk: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer? — Jennifer L., Wellesley, MA

No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don’t). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations.

But that hasn’t stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations…"

SNAFU is worried that San Francisco is “already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation” from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas at 530 locations around the city. The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials to increase “restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone antennas and other wireless transmitters.” Other controversies have erupted in communities in Connecticut and elsewhere over churches renting their rooftops and steeples to cell phone companies for placement of antennas. And parents in Ossining, New York waged an unsuccessful battle in 2000 to ban revenue-generating cell towers from school grounds.

Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is "non-ionizing," meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together.

Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that "no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are…." Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.