Paul+Homo+Toxicus

__Title: __ Homo Toxicus __Director: __ Carole Poliquin __Release year: __ 2008  ** // What is the central argument or narrative of the film? // **  The central argument of the film is different toxic in our system. Even mother’s Umbilical cord blood contains pollutant like heavy metal, PCB, pesticides cardio vascular diseases, respiratory diseases and cancer. Because of toxic chemicals allergy, asthma, neurological problems are arising more. Harmful chemical such as mercury, PCB, DDT are found in people blood. In North America, 4 million chemical substances released in each year, and then they go to our food. The problems are seen in large population, because the level of toxicity is not high enough to make every people sick. There is a relation found in the studies between PCB concentration in blood and thyroid problem. Mercury levels are high in blood; therefore, children have ear infection. Some chemicals weak the immune system and some boost the immune system, which cause allergies. PCBs and mercury affect the optic nerve. Children take more or less time to respond to any visual. In Montreal, many schoolchildren have allergies. Most of Kids are healthy, but hard to motivate them since they are suffered for tension devastate disorder.  ** // What sustainability problems does the film draw out? // **  The film mentioned many sustainability problems. Beside human, the chemicals also affect other species. Whales are dying from cancer. River is also drying because of the toxic level. PBDEs are released to the environment from computers and other electronics. Then they go to our system. People are becoming Hyperactive, thyroid hormone level are high. Children are having learning problems. Some chemicals like bisphenol change cell signaling, cause cancers and insulin resistant cause obesity, diabetics. Some of the information about the chemicals are not reliable. Scientific studied found problems with the bisphenol but the studies funded by industries did not found any problems with it. Many household items contains toxic chemical. Beef has been injected with six different hormones, to increase the growth. Those hormone causes cancer. Vegetables and fruits in USA have more pesticides than Europe, since US produce more of these. In the families that close to the industrial facilities, children have to use puffer, and they are highly allergic. Women are having a lot of miscarriage. Rivers are getting polluted from the pesticide of the monoculture farming. Tadpoles are decreasing in population. Geno estrogen pollutants affect many fishes. Therefore, the fishes are producing less sperm and more eggs. Similar to fishes, human reproductive systems could be affected too. It could cause genital malformation ( Abnormal or anomalous formation or structure). Some chemicals block the affects of testosterone. The drinking water is not safe to drink. Very little pesticides remain in the drinking water, but when they are combined together, they could be larger in amount. The film also mentioned about deforestation, which caused by mono farming. Because of global warming, some places do not have seasons and some places have no flies because of heat. Since the government does not fund the research money, the money comes from private sector. It was also interesting to know that Canadian Environmental protection act smart regulation act is Corporate driven.  ** // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? // ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">There are many compelling part in this film. I have learned a lot. Male birth decline, because male sperms are less active and slower or male fetus could not make the full term. Male child are affected with more problems. Males are having reproductive problem, producing less sperm. European Union banned hormone, but USA and Canada were against it. Atrazine are banned in Europe, but not in us, since industry is too powerful. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> ** // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? // ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The film mentioned about male birth declined and sexual behavior altered, but it did not provide enough prove for that. Carole was very excited to give her plasma to the chemical company. She acted as if she has accomplished a very important work, but I do not understand the importance of that, because she cannot prove anything new with that. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> ** // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What audiences does the film best address? Why? // ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">I think everybody should watch this film, because everybody should be aware of these toxic chemicals. This film will also make some people depress because people cannot do a lot about to prevent the problem. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> ** // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? // ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The film did not mention anything about medicine, how bad it could be. To make a stronger argument the film could have use more data from more research. The film could give us a list that which chemicals are harmful and which products are carrying them. After watching the film, I was thinking could chemicals altered sexual behavior? <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> ** // <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">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="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">There were not many solutions were suggested in this film. It mentioned, Canada banned PBDE computers. Therefore, banning harmful products could be helpful. Farmers thrown way those vegetables, in where led were present. Therefore, all the produce, fish, and meat should be checked often to find its chemical contamination. People should look for natural personal care products and could make their own. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> **// <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? //** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 150%;">I wanted to know more about the chemicals that present in daily soaps and shampoos. Most shampoos and cosmetics contain Petrochemicals ( chemical substance s obtained from petroleum ) that can be absorbed through the scalp and skin. Over time, these could accumulate in the organs and tissues. This accumulation may result in swelling brain, nerve, and liver damage. A very toxic-compound, DEA (diethanolomine) is commonly found in personal care products like soaps, detergents and lot other home and personal care products. it has connections with kidney, liver, and other organ damage <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 150%;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">[]