Hartmann+Annotation+7



Thomas Hartmann Word Count: 1034


 * Title:** Homo Toxicus
 * Director:** Carole Poliquin
 * Release Year:** 2008

The film addresses the human health problems caused by the toxins that we make contact with in our environment, especially the ones that are put there by humans. The film discusses problems such as the concentration of these toxins as they move up the food chain, the health effects of these toxins, and the lack of effectiveness that we have in diagnosing health problems caused by these environmental toxins.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film primarily uses scientific research and case studies to convince the audience that environmental toxins are a serious problem. For example, uses surveys that show increases in problems such as allergies, hyperactivity, autism, and cancer. One of the case studies used by the film is of the Inuit and their high rate of ear problems. The film argues that the chemicals such as PCBs in the food that the Inuit eat are more concentrated because they are higher up in the food chain. The film also argues that these chemicals affect the immune system, which makes the Inuit more susceptible to ear infections. Another case study that the film uses is of the significant imbalance in birth rate of males and females on Indian reservations. The film links this either to chemicals that act like estrogen or chemicals that make male fetuses more fragile and more likely to be lost during pregnancy than female fetuses. The estrogen mimicking chemicals has already been shown to cause male fish to grow ovaries and produce eggs in polluted rivers.
 * 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 film draws out the problem in science that it is difficult to show that even small amounts of toxins have negative impacts of human health because symptoms are often attributed to other factors and because effects on populations as a whole are not analyzed as closely as effects on individuals. Politically and legally, the film describes the problem of using risk management as opposed to the precautionary principle. For example, proper regulation will never result if industries are told to regulate themselves because they would never regulate themselves in ways that limit their growth. The film also extensively draws out the human health problems that result from toxins in the environment.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I was particularly compelled by the part of the film that described how economics always takes precedence over issues such as human health effects, the environment, and sustainability. For example, the film describes how atrazine is rarely argued against in areas where it is relied upon because people fear that the chemical industry will get revenge if one of their products is no longer used. However, as more and more of the dangers of these chemicals become known, the chance that someone will speak up against their use increases.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The part of the film that I was not completely convinced by was the argument that PCB’s are affecting the Inuit’s immune systems, which is causing them to have more ear infections and subsequent hearing problems. Although I believe PCB’s could be part of the cause, I also believe that the cold weather that the Inuit live in is a much greater cause. I do not think that the film present sufficient evidence that the rate of ear problems is correlated with the amount of PCB’s that the Inuit are exposed to (that the rate of ear problems has increased since PCB’s have been used).
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film addresses all humans, but is directed particularly to people with health problems or people who would be significantly affected such as families. The film describes many potential causes of these health problems and how they sometimes can and cannot be avoided. It also makes people aware of environmental toxins and their effects that are less well known, which tends to make people think twice about doing things such as letting their children chew on plastic toys or using pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns and gardens.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The environmental educational value of the film could have been enhanced if it better described the difference between risk management and the precautionary principle. Although the film described Canada’s view of the precautionary principle, it does not clearly explain that their perspective is more about risk management than the precautionary principle. I think that the film could have described the European Union’s version of the precautionary principle, which is much better at protecting human health and the environment.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The corrective actions suggested by the film are doing more research on the effects of low concentrations of toxins on human, animal, and plant health and increasing public awareness of the results of this research.
 * 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.**

Because I was skeptical about the cause of hearing problems in the Inuit, I did some research to determine if there are other reasonable potential causes. I found that in addition to the cold weather, the structure of the Eustachian tube in their ear of the Inuit is more susceptible to infection. Also, the Inuit are less likely to seek medical attention for ear infections, which increases the likelihood that the infections will cause hearing problems. Also, hearing problems may also be caused by tobacco smoke, which is used extensively by the Inuit. I found that the Inuit were about 30% less likely to go to the doctor than Canadians. Further, the Inuit are more than three times more likely to smoke than Canadians. [] []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**