PennacchiaFilmAnnotation9

Andrew Pennacchia Film Annotation #9

**1. Film:** The Fluoride Deception **Director:** Christopher Bryson **Release Year:** 2006

**2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**  The central argument of the film is that there is scientific research proving that fluoride in our water supply is actually unsafe despite the US government's attempt to cover it up. This research establishes a clear linkage between fluoride poisoning and/or exposure to fluoride in moderate amounts to lung and lymph node damage, liver and bone cancer, hyperactivity, and memory and IQ problems. The film also highlights the fact that this fluoride in our drinking water is not equivalent to FDA standards but is actually a product of industrial waste.

**3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**  The argument is sustained by Christopher Bryson's research of certain political and scientific figures in US history as well as certain events involving flouridated drinking water. For example, Dr.Cox claimed that fluoride was safe despite evidence that proved otherwise. Bryson encourages the viewer to realize that the Melon institution had also wrongly claimed that asbestos was not the cause of mesophileoma which raises some suspicion about Cox. Another person who claimed that fluoride was safe was Dr. Hodge and because he was involved with the Manhattan project, he had no choice but to advertise that fluoride was safe or else he would be compromising the US army and government. In Pennsylvania, a bout of horrible fog left people injured and diseased. It was discovered that their blood tests showed evidence of high Fluoride concentrations in the blood, but public health insisted that it was a mixture of pollutants that caused the incident. Additionally, two researchers were fired from their jobs after disclosing the results of their experiments that rendered fluoride unsafe. Besides this research and the scientific information provided by reporting the results of the experiments with fluoride, the film also has some emotional appeal. The fact that the government knew fluoride was unsafe, it was still put into the water supply which may cause the viewer to be upset and maybe angry. It was also upsetting that the researchers were fired from their jobs for exposing the truth.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

**Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?**

**Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**  The film focuses on political, and ecological sustainability problems. From a political aspect, the government and agencies that are supposed to protect the health of the public including the FDA and EPA were lying. The CDC even claimed that water fluoridation was one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20 th century. This is a problem because the research clearly showed that fluoridation was harmful, so if the government tried to cover this up, and was obviously successful at it, show are we supposed to trust the government? Another problem highlighted by the film is the ecological dilemma of how the fluoride in our water supply is actually industrial waste. Also, if this fluoride maybe be harmful to humans, it is probably causing problems to animals who come into contact with this water as well.

**5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**  The part of the film that I found most persuasive was the direct correlation between the research findings of the dangers of fluoride and how the government immediately took action to avoid this information getting to the public. It seems like there is no other reason to cover up this information besides the fact that it was true and that the government was worried about the public turning against it.

**6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The part of the film I was not compelled by was the specific reasons why the government was pushing for fluoridated water. If fluoride was proven to be harmful, it does not seem rational that they would cover up this finding (while potentially affecting so many people) just to cover up their mistake of letting industrial waste into the water supply.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The audience best addresses all individuals, high school aged and older. Everyone utilizes the country's water supply so it is important to educate those capable of understanding the political, social, and ecological issues associated with the topic that are presented in the film. After seeing the exposed truth in this film, people can decide whether they would like to take some kind of corrective action against fluoridated water.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> \ ** 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The possible effects of the fluoridated water on the environment could have been added to the film. It focused more on the effects on humans, which of course is extremely important, but it did not mention how, if at all, this fluoridated water could affect surrounding environment. The film also could have mentioned how exactly the fluoride was produced as waste from these factories.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> **9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> In terms of the government, a corrective action could have been to regulate the industrial waste that was causing the fluoridated water, but this was not discussed in the film. Christopher Byrson's suggestion for corrective action was encouraging the public to get organized,and to invest their time in speaking up to fight for a change.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The additional information I was compelled to seek out was if the public view on this topic had changed since this film (and the book that Christopher Bryson wrote about this topic)was released in 2006. It is apparent that in the last five years, controversy on this topic has amplified, as many people are discussing the harms of water fluoridation. These people are reiterating the ideas and the research supporting the fact that fluoridated water is harmful, which is a step towards uniting and fighting for a change.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">[] <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">http://www.iowasource.com/health/2011_11_fluoride.html