Homo+Toxicous+-+Helinski


 * Homo Toxicus**

1. Title, director and release year?
 * - HomoToxicus
 * - Carole Poliquin
 * - 2007

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
 * - The film goes into detail about the amount of toxic chemicals that go into the ass production of items used every day by individuals, and then continues to explore the effects of coming into contact with these substances on a daily basis.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
 * - Effects of Air Pollution due to the release from production plants spilling fumes into the environment
 * - The effects of chemicals on human beings that come into contact with products that are created using substances that are proved to be dangerous to the health of the handlers and users.
 * o The film touches upon the concept that we are actually poisoning ourselves through mass production and the chemicals involved in it.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
 * - The amount of chemicals found within children’s umbilical cords is absolutely astonishing that an individual that has not even had the ability to come in contact with these substances on its own is still being poisoned before even having the opportunity to defends itself form them
 * o The 110 contaminates found within her blood is just another frightening fact of how impacting all of these substances are
 * § DDT being found yet banned for 30 yrs
 * · Although it is banned, people still have to realize the fact that all of the products that were created using some substances that was recently banned are still in circulation of use and will continue to be for years.
 * - That arctic animals, who are so isolated have levels of toxins within that can cause fetal deformations is unbelievable that something that is so defenseless in its isolated environment are still being subjected to substances that they have ability to protect themselves from.
 * o The effect on the young generations in such an isolated arctic village shows the devastating reaches that these substances expand to.
 * § The teacher has to war a microphone for the children to be able to hear them is another horrible example of what we ourselves are doing to mankind.
 * - The great effects of a 1/1,000,000,000 part of chemicals and the devastating tolls that it has on life.
 * - The lack of testing of Bisfenal A in the 1980’s although it has been shown to be so disruptive and destructive
 * o Industry testing that shows that Bisfenal A has not been dangerous which is completely opposite of those that have been done before
 * o How common chemicals are in the house that have been shown to be dangerous yet still remain in use in an area that people depend on on a daily basis.
 * - EU banning the use of hormones because they cannot safely determine is they are safe or not while the US and Canada continue to use them on a regular basis is just another supporting fact of how more health conscious the EU style of life is. The different amount of chemicals allowed by Canada versus the low levels of Europe is shocking that they could bother have access to the same information yet on country has a lower standard of healthy living for its citizens. What is the value that they are putting on the health of their citizens?
 * - The visual graphs that show the health effects to those who live within the reservation next to the chemical plants is just another form of solid evidence that is almost overwhelming to look at yet describes the devastating effects in such a perfect manner.
 * - The drastic increase in penis malformation in the newborns again is along the same lines of the shock value that the amount of chemicals found on the umbilical cord. Again these substances are causing life crippling effects on those who do not even have the chance to defend against the chemicals.
 * o The disruption of something that is as natural as hormones and at such a crucial development stage is such an impacting sign that something needs to be changed yet actions that are not nearly swift enough are being rationalized as the appropriate responses.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
 * - The doctor confirming that the metals and toxins were In the blood but that there was no need to worry is ridiculous. I don’t understand how someone in such an important professional can rationalize saying something along those lines.
 * o At least he admits to the fact that they are present but he does not go into any more detail about what can be done for instance to slow the future rate of absorption.
 * - Technical terms that are above the level of the average persons understandings hinder some of the impacting things that are revealed I this film. If people can’t even understand what is being explained to them, how are they going to grasp the concept of the impact that is being caused?
 * - The downplay that said that the dangers to frogs have no coloration with human health although we all live off the same land and water is another fitting example of how some information is rationalized. It’s astonishing that people can be so ignorant to some things.

6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
 * - I would enjoy looking at all documented FDA history of all increased medical issues directly linked to the exposure to chemicals and toxins
 * - The higher levels that cause breast cancer and prostate cancer in rodents of Bisfenial A test results to see if the film left out any further detail on the experiments.
 * - Any kind of testing on hormones approved by governments to be injected into food and what kind of effects it has to the meat, and further if it has been shown to have any effect if ingested by humans.
 * - Many of the studies show information that is incorrect with those levels found in the younger children, so when were all of these studies preformed and who were the subjects? I would be curious in finding more out about these studies to find out why results are so varying from one another.
 * - What are the grounds that Canada uses to justify the levels of chemicals that they use on agricultural, when Europe uses little to none? How are they expressing this to their citizens and what is their ground for holding such a lower standard of health?

7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
 * - This film raises awareness of toxins and their effects, yet has a higher level of information and technical terms that may push off those who do not understand the basics of science and health. The way that the film is formatted and narrated makes me feel that it would be best addressed to an audience that has pervious knowledge on health and science so they could understand in depth what the film is trying to convey.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
 * - Further investigation as to what products you purchase contain chemicals and toxins and to be aware of the health effects that may be tied to them is something that is suggested to the viewers. Simple taking a little extra time to do some research on what you are bringing into your home and exposing to yourself, family, and friend are the first steps that could be taken into consideration.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?


 * - This film I feel already has a very high educational value and is is filled with information, unfortunately that is also what is causing this film to lack educational value because it is too scientific. If It contain more explanation of some of the technical terms for those who have not had a scientific background would allow this film to be much more impacting on a wider viewer base.