RichMichaelAnnotation4

“Homo Toxicus,” Carole Poliquin
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

- pollution and its consequences on the human body - the flow of pollutants and how they end up in our bodies - “safe amount of toxins”
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

- how easy it is to be exposed to a myriad of pollutants without even knowing it - animal testing (purposefully exposing them to harmful toxins, to see their responses - our willingness to feign ignorance and introduce toxins into our daily lives - the obsession with maximum productivity - problems with proximity to pollution-heavy areas, health conditions - rationalization of the industry that their actions are perfectly safe under certain conditions - the infinite possibilities/problems with testing toxins in combination
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

It still blows my mind that we have established “a safe level of toxins.” We shouldn’t be comfortable with any toxins at all. There is a mass desensitization that //toxins// have no affect at certain quantities. Busting the myth that prodding the immune system with small levels of toxins actually has very few benefit, was an interesting twist. Some hypotheses were made, that these toxins are having adverse affects, not only on our health, but also on our ability to learn. The system is stubborn, to the point that those who oppose it easily lose their jobs. An amazing visual, the sticker charts that the women compiled for their community, really revealed shocking information.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Towards the beginning of the film, a study was concluding that with increased exposure, comes an increase in illness. I didn’t need a several-year study to tell me that. I don’t totally agree with the shifted bell curve theory that was presented. The amount of smarter/happier/more successful people cannot be reduced to such a simple model. The path that the director takes is slow and even boring at times. It felt like she was taking a very round about way of explaining things and any “helpful” data was just thrown into the mix in hopes that someone could latch on and agree.
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I’d like to know the effects that these “safe amounts” of toxins have on my body. How do I avoid them? Can I avoid them at all? This ties into food and drink as well as getting as simple as the air we breathe. //Shopping Our Way to Safety//, by Andrew Szasz, addresses these issues and uncovers some shocking truths about our daily routines and how dangerous they really can get.
 * 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.?**

It seems like this film could have a pretty big impact on the Canadian community, as it does tend to focus mostly on that region of the world. As a student, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of these issues, but this was in fact the first time reported from the Canadian perspective; and the problems are practically identical. The simplicity of the film, although sometimes bogged down by scientific and technical data, allows for the realities to stand out and make the viewer very aware of the issues at hand. Not many solutions were offered. I don’t think this film will prove to have a major impact on the lives of those who view it.
 * 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?**

- be careful of what you willfully introduce into your body - be mindful of the what products are made of and where they come from - talk of banning the use of harmful substances
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

At times, it was difficult to understand what people were saying, even with the voiceover, and as a French speaker, I felt that some information and attitudes was lost in the literal translation. As mentioned before, I felt that the information was very scattered and unfocused. Perhaps, reanalyzing the topics and selecting more comprehensible paths to explain and reach the point would have helped.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**