Questions about the floods, their impact and the best way to deal with them are everywhere. Is aid really reaching those who need it? Are countries giving enough and if not why not? Is the army really doing the best job on the ground? As the UN reviews the security of aid workers after threats from the Taliban - how safe is it for those working to help those in need?

Please post any questions you have here and if you'd like to come on air live to ask them directly add your contact details. Alternatively send your questions and details to worldhaveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

Wyclef Jean is considering running for presidency of Haiti.

It's not the first time a celebrity has turned to politics. Arnold Schwarzenegger - best remembered in Hollywood for his roles as the Terminator - was elected as Republican governor of California in 2003 and actors Ronald Regan and Clint Eastwood and cricketer Imran Khan have all moved from the popular arena to the political one.

Support for Wyclef is strong. Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton for one applauds his achievements in the region so far:

It would be pretty incredible if he could pull this off and no one can argue that he doesn't have the country's best interests at heart. Wyclef Jean has been at the forefront of the relief effort for Haiti since the country was shattered by the massive earthquakes this year.

But not everyone thinks celebrity and politics is a match made in heaven. For Ann Perkins in the Guardian it's a mistake to mix the two:

They seem to have forgotten that while celebrities only have celebrity, politicians are not about being famous. Their purpose is to explain to the rest of us how and why we should live alongside one another. We need authenticity in politicians only in so far as we want them to be true to themselves.

So do celebrities make good politicians? Or does fame and fortune only distract from the serious job of political leadership? Join the discussion here, on our Facebook page or follow #wyclef

So the final is on Sunday but what have you really thought of South Africa's World Cup?

From the sound of vuvuzelas to those questionable referee decisions, the propehtic powers of Paul the Octopus to the odd inglorious win, tonight World Have Your Say is hosting World Cup Team Talk and we want to hear from you.

Over the past month there've been highs and lows, good play and bad behaviour, lack-lustre perfomances and surpise wins. But how would you describe the past month of football? Has the beautiful game lived up to its name this time around? Were you gripped or bored to tears?

And that's only talking about the football. What about the host nation? Before the World Cup, concerns about violence, crime and hooliganism grabbed the headlines. But South Africa showed the world it was better than that by hosting a tournament full of soul and smiles. Are you there? How's it been?

You can join the global conversation here from 1600 GMT where you'll be able to chat with other fans across a number of different languages. Or join us on air from 1700 GMT.

For many people it's been a fantastic World Cup in South Africa - just a shame about the football! What do you think? Leave your comments here or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

We condemn this barbaric and inhuman practice and demand that the U.S. government and international justice and human rights groups speak out on this. We demand that the Islamic Republic of Iran ENDS this inhuman practice of stoning.

For blogger Boris Pomroy stoning it not only barbaric but unIslamic:

It is only fair to point out at this time that 'death by stoning' is in no way Islamic, it is not mentioned in the Koran at all. However, following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the Mullahs were quick to install it into the penal code as their punishment of choice for adulterers...Writing this, I can't really work out what appalls me most. The inequality that women like Ms Ashtini face (A women's testimony is only worth half that of a man), the sheer brutality of the situation or the fact that it all so pre-meditated.

But for others - such as Behnaz Tavakoli commenting on the Huffington Post - criticism should start at home first:

If you want to stop maybe 5-10 cases of stoning by invading and killing 3-5 million Iranians, you are on the wrong track. Muslims have different cultures and rules, the Iraq and Afghanistan should teach you that western civic society cannot be exported by guns. We have major problems at home and lost control of US to a bunch of elite corpocrats. Let's fix our problems at home and lead by example if we can.

One thing's for certain. Everyone's afraid. Illegal immigrants of being found out. Asylum seekers of being sent back. Governments of jeopardising security.

Now President Obama has stepped in and is trying to overturn Arizona's immigration bill.

Meanwhile in Australia, Prime Minster Julia Gillard has announced plans for a refugee processing centre in East Timor for those seeking asylum. She says this will help put an end to people trafficking. The leader of the opposition party in Australia has taken a similarly hard line insisting he would reinstate a policy of turning back the boats.

But are detention centres really the best solution? In Norway, asylum seekers facing deportation are now in custody after allegedly burning down the shelter they'd been detained in.

Meanwhile, the UK border agency has criticised some ports in Wales for their limited approach to immigration control - something it regards as a risk to the nation's security.

So what is the best way to control illegal immigration? Let us know what you think here or by joining the conversation on our Facebook page.

The simple blood test would be able to give a result up to ten years before any symptoms begin to show. About 35 million people across the world suffer from Alzheimer's - a form of dementia with symptoms which include severe memory loss. There is currently no cure for the disease.

Some Fridays are now reserved for meeting with other doctors about genetic testing. Sometimes I spend hours trying to explain to other physicians why I feel this is an important test that needs to be offered more frequently. There is a lot of opposition. They worry that the patient won't really understand. They don't have the time to explain the significance. They fear that the patient may be discriminated against by insurers. Over and over I hold steady. I would rather know and so do a lot of other patients like me.

Others see such tests not only pointless but dangerous. When there is no form or cure or prevention, as is the case with Alzheimer's and other diseases such as Huntington's, is knowledge power or is it simply a case of curiosity killing the cat? Quite literally.

For those like Huntingdon's sufferer Charles Sabine the test has defined his future:

I will not escape Huntington's. The only way I won't get sick is if I die suddenly from something else, such as being hit by a car. There is no cure, but scientists in Denmark and the United States are developing drugs to suppress the symptoms. That is my only hope

So would you like to know how you'll die? Perhaps you or someone close to you has confronted the dilemma of 'to test or not to test'? Let us know what your views are here or on our Facebook page.