According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 30% of all cancer-related deaths are entirely preventable, and as such, the World Cancer Day organization pinpoints 7 factors that directly contribute to cancer deaths: tobacco use, healthy diet, alcohol consumption, sun exposure, physical activity, environmental carcinogens and cancer-causing infections. All of these factors are, in themselves, preventable while also promoting overall health.

Tobacco Use
Smoking and second-hand smoke has been long linked to later development of cancer. Though a hard habit to kick, quitting smoking dramatically decreases an individual's chance of cancer.

Healthy Diet
Though not directly linked as other factors are, a healthy diet does not necessarily prevent any one type of cancer. The thought is that a healthy diet is a balanced diet, and by eating well, an individual is less likely to be overweight and more likely to be generally healthy.

Alcohol Consumption
The level of alcohol consumed by an individual needs to be in balance. Some alcohol consumption is linked to the prevention of certain cancers, but if the scales are tipped past the point of moderation, the risk of developing cancers increases astronomically.

Sun Exposure
Like alcohol consumption, sun exposure is also a balancing act. Too little sun leads to a Vitamin D deficiency and too much sun is responsible for nearly 90% of all skin cancers.

Physical Activity
Being fit does not prevent cancer itself, but goes along with a generally healthy lifestyle. Making the choice to eat right and exercise does go hand-in-hand with making other smart choices.

Environmental Carcinogens
The other factors that the World Cancer Day organization promotes are considered to be more lifestyle choices. However, with environmental carcinogens, there is not much room for “choice.” Many toxins and hazards that are carcinogenic are often linked to an individual's occupation.

For example, some of the most carcinogenic industries include mining and manufacturing, where individuals are exposed to deadly toxins like asbestos and soot. Asbestos exposure is linked to a devastating form of cancer known as mesothelioma, where the lining of the lungs, heart or abdominal cavity is attacked.

Cancer-Causing Infections
In general, most infections are treatable and preventable through immunizations. But, if some infections – like Hepatitis – are left untreated, then it increases the risk of cancer.

More than 75% of schools contain asbestos and are exposing occupants to the carcinogenic material, according to the Department of Education, as cited in the report.

Over the past 10 years, more than 140 teachers have contracted and died from mesothelioma – a rare cancer that attacks the lining of the lungs, abdominal cavity and heart – because of their exposure at their workplace.

Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer that currently does not have a cure nor a positive prognosis. Though mesothelioma is the most commonly associated asbestos-related illness, exposure to the carcinogenic fibers may lead to other deadly diseases. In particular with mesothelioma, the disease may incubate upwards of two decades after the asbestos exposure before symptoms present.

On the heels of this incendiary report, researchers in the United States have also found that because of the overwhelming amount of asbestos in schools, for every teacher that dies after contracting a disease as a result of the asbestos exposure – mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer – 9 children will die.

Though concrete evidence is not available, it is speculated that the reason why more children will die from asbestos exposure in their schools than teachers or staff is because there is a higher student-to-teacher ratio. It is also suggested that children are more susceptible to the carcinogenic fibers than adults.

In the United Kingdom, Jim Sheridan, the Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health and a Labor Member of Parliament called the shocking prevalence of asbestos in schools a “national scandal.”

“Urgent action is needed to prevent more pupils, teachers and other staff being exposed to this deadly dust,” said Mr. Sheridan.

According to a Reuters article, the reorganization plan will allow for the establishment of two trusts to compensate property owners and personal injury claimants. The company announced that funds for the trusts will come from several different sources including insurance proceeds, warrants to purchase common stock, cash, and others, with the intention of covering all current and future asbestos claims.

"I am optimistic that the legal process related to our Joint Plan is coming to an end and we can emerge in the near future," said W. R. Grace and Co. Chief Executive Fred Fest.

When Grace filed bankruptcy in April 2001, they were experiencing an onslaught of asbestos lawsuits, most of them filed by individuals who were sickened by asbestos exposure at the company’s vermiculite mine and processing plant in Libby, Montana, a small town in the northwest corner of the state. Health experts estimate that about 400 former and current Libby residents have already died due to related diseases like mesothelioma and some 1,500 more have x-rays that show significant scarring of the lungs due to asbestos inhalation. Those affected range from men who worked in the mines to spouses and children of mineworkers who brought dust home on their clothes, to young adults who - as children - played in asbestos tailings used as filler in school and public playgrounds.

According to a report on WBOC-TV16, contractors who were charged with the task of fixing the lighting in the auditorium at Cambridge-South Dorchester High School so that it worked properly for an upcoming show found sizeable amounts of asbestos insulating the wires connected to the old fixtures used for stage lighting.

Teachers and students were alarmed by the discovery and were also concerned that the findings would mean the school play would not be able to proceed as planned. "It scared me for a while but we met with representatives from the board and they have promised to do [the repairs] fast so that it won't bother the play," said Donna James, the theater teacher at the school. "We can't move them,” she added, “so if it's not done then we will have a major lighting problem.”

Officials noted that the asbestos is not a problem if it’s not disturbed. However, moving the lights can cause crumbling, friable asbestos to fall to the floor or circulate throughout the air, where students, faculty, or anyone assisting with the play could potentially inhale the toxic dust. This prompts concerns because asbestos is a carcinogen and asbestos exposure can eventually cause serious lung diseases to develop, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer. Parents of Cambridge-South Dorchester students, however, received letters telling them there is no reason to worry. In the meantime, officials are trying to decide how to best remedy the situation.

It isn’t unusual to find asbestos-containing materials in older schools throughout the U.S. The mineral was used abundantly in a variety of construction items like pipe and wiring insulation, and some schools even had stage curtains made of asbestos, popular due to the mineral’s durability and fire resistance.

According to university officials in Gainesville, the school closed the first floor of the Department of Ophthalmology Visual Science Lab and the ground floor’s morgue, autopsy suite and Department of Physiology labs last Thursday because routine air tests conducted during low-risk asbestos removal showed that airborne asbestos levels were higher than federal guidelines allow.

While those areas were reopened on Friday, filters were installed in all the affected areas of the Medical Science Building and employees who worked in those portions of the building were given administrative leave until the all clear is received. UF officials reported that no patient areas were affected. The school plans to continue testing throughout the week and next weekend in all areas in the basement, ground floor, and first floor.

It isn’t unusual for old buildings in the nation’s universities to contain asbestos. For several decades during the 20th century, asbestos could be found in thousands of construction products and may have been contained in insulation, floor and ceiling tiles, drywall glue and other adhesives, cement, and more. As long as old asbestos materials are not disturbed, then are generally safe. However, renovations and other projects can disturb friable, crumbling asbestos and cause the release of fibers, which can become airborne and may be inhaled. Anyone who inhales asbestos is a candidate for developing asbestos cancer later in life.

According to a report in the Times Free Press, the Chattanooga, Tennessee men were found guilty this week of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act, a federal law in place to protect the environment. The men in question – Don Fillers, James Mathis, and David Wood – face up to five years imprisonment on the asbestos violations charges and Fillers could receive up to 20 additional years for a related obstruction of justice charge. In addition, Fillers’ company – Watkins Street Project L.L.C. – was also found guilty in the case, which involved improper handling and disposal of toxic asbestos materials.

Specifically, the men failed to remove asbestos from the property before they proceeded with demolition. As a result, area residents reported that location where the old Standard Coosa Thatcher plant once stood was littered with asbestos-containing debris and that hazardous asbestos dust was blowing throughout the neighborhood.

During the three-week trial, many locals testified that they feared for their health, aware that asbestos exposure can cause the development of serious lung diseases including lung cancer and other forms of the disease, such as mesothelioma.

Textile mills of old were full of asbestos, which was primarily used as insulation on machinery located throughout the plants and may have also been found in floor and ceiling tiles or wrapped around wires and pipes. Textile workers who were employed in plants that were built prior to the late 1970s were likely to be exposed to asbestos on a regular basis and, as a result, many have been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases.

Several new proton therapy facilities are popping up across the country, including a $30 million project in Palm Beach, FL. The Mayo Clinic is also constructing two proton therapy facilities in Arizona and Minnesota.

Proton therapy is considered to be an alternative cancer treatment option to traditional x-ray radiation therapy. Both therapies are radiation-based; however, with proton therapy, radiation is delivered through positively charged particles.

It is thought proton therapy has a significantly lower occurrence of side effects most commonly associated with radiation. Minor proton therapy side effects may include nausea, vomiting or gastrointestinal disruptions.

Furthermore, proton therapy is a highly targeted procedure with little to no resulting damage to surrounding healthy tissue – a serious and oftentimes dangerous consequence of traditional x-ray radiation therapy.

Though most widely implemented as a treatment method for prostate and lung cancers, proton therapy is showing considerable promise as a treatment option for cancers that affect smaller regions of the body including eye, brain and between the head and neck.

With the limited success proton therapy has had with lung cancer, this “sci-fi” treatment option may become viable for more deadly lung cancers like mesothelioma. Further, the precision of proton therapy is promising for delivering radiation for hard-to-access and delicate parts of the body. One form of mesothelioma, pericardial mesothelioma, affects the lining surrounding the heart and is often difficult to treat. Proton therapy is promising for asbestos cancers.

However, proton therapy does have skeptics and detractors. Typically, the major concern raised regarding proton therapy is the cost of the procedure. In short, building, running and maintaining specialized proton therapy departments is very expensive, especially in comparison to x-ray radiation therapy. Constructing a proton therapy facility can cost upwards of a $100 million.

Even more, the sheer cost of providing proton therapy for one patient is daunting to some insurance companies.

Another common issue with proton therapy is the lack of available data. Essentially, proton therapy, unlike other similar cancer treatments, has not undergone rigorous and extensive study. Due to its limited clinical history, some believe that there is not enough data and evidence to determine whether or not proton therapy is more effective than x-ray radiation.

X-ray radiation therapy is less expensive, widely available and is generally covered by most insurance carriers.

Time will tell whether proton beam radiation therapy is as effective as the early evidence suggests.

According to an article in the Boston Globe, the government and voters of the two towns are eyeing the location of the former mine as a potential spot for a 6-megawatt biomass power plant. But, the 1,500 acre site needs to be thoroughly cleaned first, and some say that will take as much as 10 years and some $200 million.

This is the second time residents are being asked to consider the proposition of turning the location, littered with asbestos tailings, into a Superfund site. Many support the idea wholeheartedly while others fear that making such a declaration will adversely affect property values in the two towns, which currently have populations of about 1,000 people each.

The asbestos mine, shared by the two towns, was located on an area known as Belvedere Mountain and was in operation for nearly a century, closing in 1993. The state Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Health estimate that after the mine ceased operations, some 16 million cubic yards of mill tailings were left behind, putting anyone living within 10 miles of the mine at risk for exposure and the development of diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer. An additional report confirms that all the deaths thus far related to the mine were indeed caused by asbestos exposure.

Now, residents hope they can put that legacy behind them. "We really can see a good proposal for a 6-megawatt plant," said Vermont Electric Cooperative CEO, Dave Hallquist. "It's a great location.” But, he notes, it’ll have to be cleaned up first.

Still, the current governor and his two predecessors maintain that they will not request Superfund status unless locals agree that it’s the best thing to do. Meetings will be held next month to discuss the particulars of the Superfund option.

You’ve never seen nanomaterials. An article in the New York Times points out that they are one ten-thousandth the width of a human hair, sometimes smaller. Yet the uses of nanotechnology and the market for these miniscule materials – including nanoscale forms of substances such as silver, aluminum, carbon, and zinc – is growing in leaps and bounds, providing scientists with reasons to worry.

After all, says the Academy, little is known about the hazards of exposure to these materials. That’s why they are calling for a four-part research study that will focus on “identifying sources of nanomaterial releases, processes that affect exposure and hazards, nanomaterial interactions at subcellular to ecosystem-wide levels, and ways to accelerate research progress.”

Most eagerly await the results of the new study. Meanwhile, a similar study by the Departments of Anatomy and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the National University of Singapore (Ng, Li, Bay, and Yung, 2010) notes that, while some toxic effects have already been made evident, there is a “gap in knowledge” as to nanomaterials’ genotoxicity.

The concerns about nanotechnology aren’t new. In 2004, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published the first study about the use of nanomaterials (“Environmental applications and impacts of nanotechnology: summary of evidence presented to nanotechnology working group”), opening the proverbial flood gates for more and more reports by a variety of experts around the world. Still, not enough has been done to truly measure the dangers of these tiny particles.

“A lot of things are being done right, but we need to think about how to regroup those efforts to get more power from the punch,” said Mark R. Wiesner, an engineering professor at Duke University and a member of the National Academy of Science’s expert panel. “We cannot knock these things off on a case-by-case basis. The number and variety of nanomaterials that is possible is just mind-boggling. There are not enough beakers to do all the experiments required.”

Some have likened nanomaterials and their potential toxicity to asbestos, that age-old material that was believed to be the world’s best insulator but eventually became known as one of the world’s most toxic substances, still killing about 2,000 to 3,000 Americans each year. In the beginning, the hazards of asbestos exposure were unknown – and later covered up – so those working with the material were rarely provided with protective gear to get them from inhaling tiny, sharp asbestos fibers.

Many fear that this scenario could be repeated. A 2010 study from Brown University stated that, like asbestos, nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes can fool human cells into thinking they are large enough to ingest, explains Huajian Gao, the lead researcher for that study. The results, he says, could be disastrous. Gao likened the dangers of ingesting nanoparticles to eating a lollipop that’s bigger than your body. There’s no doubt that it would get stuck.

Unlike asbestos, however, Gao says it’s too soon to say “no more nanomaterials.” He, like others, insists that more research is needed, and while he admits that there’s nothing much we can do to avoid encounters with nanoparticles, he hopes that someday we’ll be able to understand how to avoid the dangers while making full use of their benefits.

However, scientists and doctors are using human genome sequencing in a highly targeted way: instead of mapping the entire DNA of a person, researchers are using the available technology to create a “road map” of deadly diseases. Genome sequencing of these medical conditions lead researchers to understand the how the disease functions, mutates and which treatment methods are most effective.

Of all conditions mapped, sequencing cancer genomes has shown to be extremely effective. According to Barrett Rollins of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, cancer “is among the most promising targets because it is essentially a disease in which damaged genes let cells grow without restraint.”

Fortunately for cancer patients, the price tag associated with gene sequencing is dropping dramatically, and as such, is becoming more widely available and accessible to people who may not have been able to afford the costly procedure.

At this point, however, many insurance companies do not offer coverage for this type of sequencing, but are looking into the possibility of covering it later. For the average patient, paying out-of-pocket is within reach, with most DNA sequencing procedures coming in than less than $1,000 USD.

Further, sequencing cancer genes has opened a treasure trove of information for doctors. What was once considered fact about a specific cancer, say mesothelioma, is now becoming theory. Mesothelioma is linked to asbestos exposure and, typically, the cancer takes upwards of 20 years to incubate in an individual. Mesothelioma attacks the lining – or the pleura – of the lungs, stomach and heart, and remains one of the most deadly forms of cancer known.

Essentially, known cancers, like mesothelioma, act a certain way. But, what is not widely known is how a known cancer behaves in an individual.

Our genes play a considerably large role in the development of and reaction to cancer. If doctors are able to sequence a patient's mesothelioma gene, then they will be able to understand how the cancer is developing in that person's body and what type of treatment is right.

Treatment options are not designed nor targeted at individual's and their unique DNA structure, but, rather, treatments target the known factors of a certain type of cancer. But what gene sequencing of cancer is offering is a complete picture of that cancer. This is reiterated by the National Cancer Institute's The Cancer Genome Atlas, since “genomics” helps doctors select individualized treatment instead of relying on broad-spectrum options.

Overall, sequencing cancer in an individual is an incredibly effective tool that more doctors and researchers are applying. Even more, this medical breakthrough will guide treatments, early detection practices and even prognoses. For a devastating cancer like mesothelioma, with such a mesothelioma prognosis is devastating, sequencing the cancer's genome will eventually lead to a comprehensive cure.