Good morning. We welcome your comments and questions.

Marla and Douglas make a fair point that they are responsible to make a case to their editors, as well as to the public, that an issue is worthy of attention--to date, requiring a certainty & clarity that are challenging with these kinds of findings. Rather than press the scientists to be more assertive about certainty, are there "out of the box" possibilities we can imagine for journalists and scientists collaborating to help the public by finding unusual ways to create media *specifically about* what it *means* to be uncertain and get more comfortable with that. It seems necessary to set a stage that will eventually allow more nuanced sets of results to arrive at the eyes of the public, even if that is not often able to happen right now.

In Fresno, CA there was a special piece produced by the Fresno Bee titled "Last Gasp" that focused on air pollution, asthma, and political inaction...shortly after that a local state senator took action and passed monumental legislation for the area... this piece not only brought the issue to a level of mainstream awareness, but as a result, prompted the beginning of political changes...how can pieces like those by Douglas Fischer and Marla Cone make it to the smaller local papers regularly?

I agree with what Alyssa Wulf has posted, in essence what it means to me is that: the public doesn't necessarily need to have these issues "dumbed down" but they do need help to work through the complexities of these issues, and not have it portrayed as a conflict between scientists or environmentalists and chemical companies.

I agree with Marla's points that we need a consistent, clear, refined message (in plain language) from the scientific community. However, that need to be followed by EFFECTIVE OUTREACH. The form of outreach most often pursued is the Internet. The problem with web resources is that people have to first be looking for answers to use that tool. I propose that a more active approach is necessary- we need to go to those who can effect change. Once the clear consistent plain English message is developed, the outreach should focus on bringing that information to several groups: 1) the grassroots local organizers who are effective at getting media attention but not always factual or accurate; 2) industry (not the American Chemistry Council, but the small and large producers and retailers. ACC will always be in opposition. But my experience with smaller industry associations (retailers and producers of products) is that many of them don't want to harm people or the environment, they just don't know what ways in which they do this- and aren't motivated to seek alternatives- we need to go to them. We also need to go to local and state government agency staff who effect alot of policy and legislative staff who do the same. Then there are the big retailers like Walmart, OSH, Home Depot, whose public image has financial value to them- we need to outreach to them. By energizing and properly informing the grassroots and getting them to use factual information (in order to maintain credibility), and even going out to local communities with public information, we can begin to overcome the ignorance and fear factors of the editors of newspapers and other media. 3) Let's not forget to educate children in schools. I would also like to suggest that improving our advocacy efforts. California has no single non-profit advocacy organization in Sacramento that is lobbying solely on toxics issues. Without that kind of representation in CA, how will we be able to stand up to the likes of the American Chemistry Council and American Plastics Council that have highly paid lobbyists (several) up there and all over California diffusing the message. The same people were responsible for the overturn of the BPA regulation in the EU. They will be our same foes as we seek a comprehensive chemicals information and regulation program more oriented to the precautionary principle.

One potential take home message - that having an element of ALARM increases the likelihood that your work will receive prominence in the media - needs to be treated with caution. This reality fuels a tendency to spin a message in an alarmist way to get it into the media. This may not be in the best interest of the public. For instance, a recent scientific paper showed through modelling that avoidance of fish in their diets by people alarmed about mercury exposures may lead to greater health risks (for them and their offspring) than had they maintained a sensible amount of fish in their diets.