Did you know the number one symptom of lung cancer is a persistent cough? Other symptoms include bouts of wheezing, shortness of breath, trouble swallowing, blood-streaked sputum, and a hoarse voice.

Did you know 28 percent of all cancer deaths are due to lung cancer and that it's the number one killer among both men and women?

Did you know that Hookahs -- used to inhale tobacco through a water pipe -- let in the same cancer-causing substances as cigarettes and are just as harmful as smoking, despite the fact that many people believe they are safer?

Now you know.

Source: WebMD: the Magazine, March/April 2007

It didn't register right away. But not long after I finished doing some research yesterday on breast cancer screening tools did I realize the statistics on breast cancer incidence have changed for 2007. Not only did they change -- they're moving in exactly the right direction.

Think about this:

The American Cancer Society reports that 178,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in American women in 2007. This number was 212,920 in 2006. Deaths by breast cancer -- there were 40,970 in 2006 -- will number 40,910 this year.

Just as it had become second nature for me to rattle off 200,000 as the general number of women diagnosed with breast cancer each year, I must learn a new number. I love it.

I just received my University of Florida alumni magazine and right smack in the middle of the publication is a story about cancer. The gist of the article is that there's an explosion of effort and activity in cancer research at this institution -- much like all over the nation -- and featured are all sorts of new cancer techniques and strategies and treatments. But one thing in particular stood out to me. What I read -- in the space of just two short sentences -- jumped off the page and really made me think.

This one thing is what I am about to share, and I'm calling it my Thought for the Day. It's a great morsel of information -- short, sweet, easy to digest, and perfectly powerful -- and so I invite you to read on, let this string of words sink into your mind, think about it over the course of the day, and then determine how you might use it in your own life. And then come back tomorrow, when another Thought for the Day will await you.

Think about this:

More than half of all cancer deaths can be prevented by maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Poor nutrition, obesity, physical inactivity, and cigarette smoking together account for 63 percent of all cancer deaths.

One in 18 men and women will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer during their lifetimes -- that translates into more than 150,000 people diagnosed and more than 52,000 colorectal cancer deaths each year, securing the disease as the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States.

Fortunately, mortality rates for this disease have been declining due to earlier screenings, awareness of symptoms, removal of polyps, and improved treatments through advances in research discoveries -- like today's genetic breakthroughs.

In a recent study, researchers identified a cell pathway critical in the development of colon cancer and also lung and stomach cancers.

STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) is the newest discovery and is a target regulated by PRPRT (receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase T), already identified to be mutated in these cancers.

"The role of protein tyrosine phosphatase in cancer is still an under-explored area," says Zhenghe John Wang, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Genetics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.

"Our study shows that receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase T regulates an important signaling pathway that is critical in cancer development. This identification will allow new approaches to pharmacological designs and facilitate alternative approaches for cancer treatment."

This study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS Online Edition Feb. 20-23, 2007), provides new hope for the development of drugs that will target this potentially deadly disease.

National Cancer Institute director John Neiderhuber worries the NCI 2007 budget could be slashed by five to 10 percent. And he worries that key cancer research will inevitably come to a halt as a result.

Worries stem from budget cuts proposed by President Bush. Cuts would cost the NCI between $36 million and $4.7 billion -- but Bush reports that NCI funding has doubled in the past 10 years and would still remain relatively high. And due to the recent American Cancer Society announcement that cancer deaths dropped for the second straight year, White House spokesman Tony Fratto says, "We're proud of the significant investment that we have made in cancer research. We're also proud of the results showing that researchers are delivering on that investment."

But researchers still worry. They worry cuts will undermine their successes. They feel like the rug is being pulled out from under them, just as they are making significant progress. They suspect 95 clinical trials could be postponed or cancelled, 3,000 patients could miss the opportunity of joining a trial, and some cancers will be completely eliminated from studies.

"There is a real cost in human life," says Allen Lichter, executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, of the more-than-monetary toll budget cuts will take on NCI research efforts.

One study already on hold, pending funding decisions, is the next phase of a study evaluating whether a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, can prevent breast cancer. Another research group has opted to stop studying brain tumors. This is a huge loss to patients with this type of cancer, says Lichter.

It's a huge loss to all of us really -- because cancer will affect each of us in some way, some day. And so with cut budgets come cut hopes, cut dreams, and sadly -- cut survival.

A mom of a daughter who has died of a cancer related illness has expressed on her blog how angry she is after seeing the broadcast on the news about cancer death rates declining....I think these are valid points that need to be addressed.

This week has been kind of emotional for me. I'm not going to spend a lot of time writing about me, because I am kind of angry right now. Yesterday, as I was watching the news while getting ready for work, there was a spot that they were talking about how excited they were that deaths from cancer showed a tremendous decrease last year. I agree, it is good news - however, the only cancers they talked about and showed the figures for were ADULT cancers (breast cancer, colon cancer, prostrate cancer, etc). Where are the numbers on childhood cancers? And - until the number is 0, I see no reason to get really excited.

According to the Lance Armstrong Foundation - With every second of 2006 two Americans were diagnosed with cancer and one died. Think about that! That is like re-living the horror of 9/11 every two days for the entire year. As a nation we have become too complacent about this disease (last year, for the first time in 35 years, governmental funding for cancer decreased) and that can no longer be tolerated.

After spending hours on the computer doing some research - I found this:

Leukemia, which is the most common childhood cancer, INCREASED by more than15% over the past 20 years. Most of the increase in leukemia rates in the past 20 years has been in a kind of cancer called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health reported an association between household chemicals and ALL. In the study, the researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the University of Minnesota found children were more likely to develop ALL if they lived in households where family hobbies involved the use of solvents (such as refinishing furniture, or building models). They were also more likely to develop ALL if more than 4 rooms in the house had been painted while their mothers were pregnant. According to the Children's Cancer Group Epidemiology Program, a network of pediatric epidemiologists, children are 5 to 6 times more likely to develop leukemia and brain cancer if their families use pesticides at home.

It is difficult to find current information and statistics on childhood cancers. And, I guess one of my questions is, where does Courtney fit in these statistics. Did she fit in the "cured" survival rate because she was considered cancer free for over 5 years? Is her death considered in the cancer death statistic for 2006 - the cause of death was not cancer, but necrotizing faciitis - however, she would not have contracted this deadly bacteria or been immune compromised if not for cancer.

I guess my point is - where are the priorities of our health care leaders and our nation. How can we pay someone $250 million dollars to come to the US and play soccer (Dave Beckham) , when there is such a tremendous need for not only medical research, but children without insurance that are being denied medical treatment (transplants) because they don't have the money. How many children have to die? What is it going to take?

I have been following about 12 online journals written by mothers of cancer patients. I began reading the journals while in the hospital with Courtney - it was what filled the long nights of no sleep. It breaks my heart to tell you that 5 of those children have now passed away and 2 more are home on hospice. I have written before about how mothers of children with cancer are members of a club that we never wanted to join. I now find myself in a new club - mothers who have lost a child to cancer. How big does this club have to get before something more is done? How many broken hearts? How many shattered families?

I have been trying to get through the paperwork to get Courtney's Angel Foundation off the ground - however, it is extremely difficult without the aid of a lawyer. I have not given up - it is just going to take some time and money to get things going. I appreciate all of you who have written to let me know that you want to be part of it and so I ask for you to continue to bear with me. I am still dreaming BIG - I am determined to do it for Court -I am determined to do it for all of the children who are spending their days in the hospital instead of living the life that they deserve.

The American Cancer Society has happily announced that cancer deaths have declined for the second straight year. This is big news -- mostly because our population is growing and aging and it's entirely possible this could have led to an increase in cancer deaths. Not only is this not true, but the drop in deaths for this second year is eight times greater than the drop during the first year. Amazing.

It's hard to imagine in light of this great news that there are still less hopeful statistics out there on the cancer front. But there are so many dimensions to this disease -- prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, survival -- that the numbers can vary tremendously depending on perspective.

From the perspective of diagnosis, one in two men and one in three women in America today will develop cancer during their lifetimes. These staggering statistics, based on data collected during 2001 through 2003, are detailed in a pivotal paper appearing in The Oncologist -- a monthly peer-reviewed journal for doctors devoted to cancer patient care.

Dr. Matthew Hayat and colleagues, who worked on this paper for the National Cancer Institute, reveal other worrisome numbers and facts.

It seems the number of new cancer patients is expected to more than double from the current 1.36 million in 2000 to almost 3 million in 2050. Five-year survival for all cancer stages combined ranges from as low as 16 percent for lung cancer patients to 100 percent for prostate cancer patients. And black Americans are reported to have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates for men and women for all cancers combined.

So while less people are dying from cancer, diagnosis of the disease seems to be on the rise. Not exactly a perfect scenario -- but if science and research can keep up, perhaps those diagnosed with cancer will need to prepare not for death, but for the management of a chronic condition.

In 1971, when it was evident cancer deaths were rising, President Nixon and Congress declared a war on cancer. Finally, after 35 years, it seems we are winning the war.

Experts say the absolute decline in cancer deaths is quite amazing -- because our population is both growing and aging, both of which could contribute to an increased cancer death rate. But prevention, early detection, and early treatment are working wonders and are saving lives for three of the most common cancers -- breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer. More and more men are also surviving lung cancer due to cessation of smoking more than 20 years ago. The female lung cancer death rate is not declining, however, due to continued high rates of smoking.

The highest drop in deaths among the major cancers was for colorectal cancer -- thanks to effective screening methods. Deaths dropped by 1,110 for men and 1,094 for women.

According to an American Cancer Society review of U.S. death certificates, cancer deaths declined by 369 between the years 2002 and 2003. Between 2003 to 2004, the decrease was 3,014 -- more than eight times greater.

Experts predict cancer deaths will continue to decline over the years -- although some expect the obesity epidemic, which increases risk for all cancers, to pop the cancer death rate back up in the long run.

United States drug company Merck hopes to offer the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil to developing countries at much lower prices -- within months, if possible.

Currently, the three-dose vaccine is not affordable in the developing world -- where 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths occur and 95 percent of females have never had a Pap test . And while the exact discounted price has not yet been determined, Merck professionals report they are committed to slashing the price of Gardasil for these women.

Merck also aims to help developing countries receive drugs sooner. Right now, there is a time lag of 15 to 20 years between the approval of drugs in the West and the time they reach these countries.

Minnesota tops state health rankings for the fourth straight year, according to the annual United Health Foundation report -- which also shows Americans are 0.3 percent healthier in 2006 than they were in 2005.

The United Health Foundation survey has been around for 17 years -- and for 11 of these years, Minnesota has been at the top of the healthy list.

Rankings are based on factors such as access to health care, incidence of preventable disease, smoking rates, child poverty rates, and motor vehicle deaths. Minnesota boasts a low rate of uninsured (8.4 percent), a low rate of child poverty (10 percent), and a low infant mortality rate (5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births).

The other states in the top five are Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Connecticut. Louisiana was rated the least-healthy state and shares this spotlight with Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

A few states -- New Mexico, Idaho and West Virginia -- show declines in overall health. And others -- Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Kansas -- show the most improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalist, commentator, and cancer patient Leroy Sievers -- the guy we've written about before, the guy who has covered many wars and witnessed countless deaths, the guy who is now observing his own death as cancer in his lungs and spine chip away at his life -- has realized that getting good news takes some getting used to.

Sievers got some good news recently. He learned that the new combination of chemotherapy drugs he's been receiving has shrunk the tumors in his lungs. And scans show the tumor on his spine is healing. It's taken him days to truly understand this concept -- this concept of hope that has miraculously delivered him more time. He didn't expect it.

Sievers fully expected that he would soon be dead. That's why he's been savoring the cold, crisp fall days -- because he was not certain he would ever see such a season. He was sure he would never host another Halloween party either -- a party he canceled this year due to his health. But now, as he takes in this new sensation of hope, he considers the possibility he may be around for another party. And he thinks he'll dress up as a tumor. Halloween is one time when good taste is never important, he says.

Sievers, who offers a weekly personal health update for NPR, available in print or in podcast format on his blog, plans to keep living in the moment. He doesn't want to overdo this hope thing. So right now, he is simply enjoying the colorful leaves -- and the season he calls one of his favorites.

Most current media reports have us believing that incidences of cancer are at epidemic proportions. What isn't making headlines is the fact that for many cancers, incidences of the disease are on the decline. This is what the American Council on Science and Health states as a result of a new report released from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If only reports like this were splashed all over our newspapers and television screens -- instead of grim reports of increasing diagnoses and deaths -- then maybe the outlook on cancer would be a bit more hopeful.

Rates of colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, stomach cancer, and cervical cancer have all been declining for two years. Drops in cases are mostly attributed to lower rates of smoking, better screening, and better treatments. For men, lung cancer death rates have also fallen.

So not all incidences of all cancers have dropped -- but some have. And this should at least keep us hoping, dreaming, wishing for a day when cancer is not even loosely associated with the word epidemic. And it should surely be cause for at least some media coverage.

Cell phone users in the United States have increased from 34 million a decade ago to more than 203 million this year. The cell phone is the invention people hate the most but can't live without even beating out the television. The old American Express saying, "Don't leave home without it" takes on a new meaning with the amount of use cell phones have in our world. Over the years concerns have escalated about if cell phones can cause brain cancer. 20/20 even did a show on that same subject back in 1999.

Although cell phone manufactures claim the phones are safe and will not cause brain cancer, it is a known fact that electromagnetic waves can penetrate the brain while holding the phone to your head. Thus the major increase in sales for cell phone head sets.

One fact is for sure about cell phones and that is the correlation between using cell phones while you drive causing more automobile accidents with injury and death. The statistic has increased so much that it is now being watched more closely than drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs and some states are now making it illegal to drive and talk on a phone at the same time while holding it in your hand. Some studies are now showing that it doesn't matter if you hold it or talk while using head phones, the concentration levels of drivers are still more impaired than those drivers that drive while under the influence.

So you make the decision with your own common sense whether to use a headset or not while talking on your cell phone and whether or not  to avoid talking on the phone while driving. Of course some states will give you a ticket if you make the wrong decision on the last choice.

Erin Brockovich-Ellis traveled to Ithaca to tell local homeowners she thinks they have a strong legal case against Emerson Power Transmission for damages resulting from the plant's contamination of the area with the industrial solvent, trichloroethylene, or TCE, a potentially potent carcinogen. It seeps into groundwater. According to Brockovich-Ellis, "the residents are not dealing with a rinky-dink amount of TCE," and went on to indicate that the TCE numbers are some of the highest she has ever seen. A spokesperson for Emerson is quoted as saying that the company was not aware of any lawsuit and had no comment. They might not have a comment but I seriously doubt they are unaware of the potential lawsuit or the arrival of Brockovich-Ellis.

Neither a lawyer or scientist, she has become legendary for her activism and work regarding environmental issues related to cancer incidence. What made her famous was the curious, relentless, tenacious, and fearlessness of her pursuit in exposing the truth of the incident involving Pacific Gas and Electric who had been knowingly exposing residents groundwater to the cancer-causing agent chromium 6 and the cancer deaths that followed. Like I said, because of who she is and the reputation that precedes her, I have difficulty believing the Emerson spokesperson when he states they are not even aware of the arrival of Brockovich-Ellis and the lawsuit her firm is interested in taking on against the company.

In an earlier post, TCE: groundwater contamination in toxic triangle of cancer, we shared a story about residents in Texas who plant small purple crosses in the front lawns of those who have been diagnosed with cancer. They believe they have been poisoned by the TCE that was dumped at a military base for decades and subsequently spread for miles through a shallow aquifer under the 22,000 nearby homes where they live.