Good morning. We welcome your comments and questions.

I disagree that we have to dumb down the message or buy into the fact that everythin must be a sound bite. It is possible to make complicated facts easy to understand- ask PBS and National Geographic- they do it all the time. ThHe public is not stupid nor are they uneducable- we just need to lower our desire for absolute perfection in explanation and realize we need to be patient with challenges from the public and our patients.

I so agree with Dr. Curtis' comment. I believe in sound bites--when they capture an issue accurately--but I think the truth of what we are learning about environnmental contaminants is a nuanced truth. We aren't teaching our patients nuance now because our silence suggests there's no problem. If clinicians become comfortable with talking about nuance and weight of the evidence decision-making they can then fill that approach with environmental contaminant examples.

As a midwifery student at UCSF, I can proudly attest to the inclusion of environmental health content in both my nursing and midwifery training. I have the background information and understand the weight of evidence...but I don't have the TIME in the clinic to present the information. Not unlike the time keepers at this summit, my preceptor is constantly reminding me that my time with the patient is up too quickly. I am forced to prioritize...and that is very hard to do when I also need to address issues like access to food and violence in the home....anyone successful at integrating this clinically? Advice for a student constantly critiqued for her time management?

I AM FROM TURKEY. MY COUNTRY HAS A NATURE DİFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. I WANTEDTO SHARE İT WİTH EVERYBODY. WHY DİD THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD WANTTO SAVE NATURE ? BECAUSE , IF THERE AREN'NT ANY NATUREL PLACES İN THE WORLD, THE LİFE 'LL BE BORİNG FOR US...