Tedford+Erin+Brockovich

1. Erin Brockovich was directed by Steven Soderbergh and released in 2000. 2. The central argument of the film is around the connection between health issues and industrial pollution in a town in California, Hinkley. Pacific Gas & Electric repeated tries to buy out home owners in the area causing real estate issues that force some folks in the town into a lawsuit. Erin Brokovich, while working in Ed Masry's law firm doing clerical work notices the case and becomes interested. What unfolds is a toxic tale of "hexavalent chromium" causes cancers, disease and fatalities in the area, all thanks to leaky holding tanks of PG&E's site. This naturally thrusts into another lawsuit, one in which Erin who is uneducated and trying to raise 3 children is the central player, being more personable with the victims involved then any of the lawyers. In the end they collect the largest amount for damages ever in a personal injury lawsuit. 3. This film draws out a few sustainability issues, but being a Hollywood film, some points are not as relevant that play into the "entertainment factor" more. __Corporations:__ In a lawsuit, time and money are of no object to a corporation. They will fight years and years, often times depleting the prosecutions wallet and quality of life. __Toxicology Disconnect:__ There is still a disconnect between diseases and disorders and their pollutant/environmental health connection. There is no way to diagnose some one with cancer and exclusively say that chemical X is the cause. __United States Judicial System:__ In order to have a trial, extreme amounts of time and effort must be put in by both sides, and often times it only takes one judge to dismiss the case. Smaller firms have trouble handling cases against large entities like PG&E, and especially personal injury lawyers because they only make money if they are winning their cases. In Ed's case, the Hinkley case was the only one he was working on and so he lost a lot of money at first, before they ended up winning. For a lawyer, risk is not something they look for... so in our justice system why would anyone take on a case like this? __Regulatory System:__ For most industrial facilities its cheaper to break regulations and pay the fine then to change their facilities to meet regulation. In this case, they just wanted to buy the people out across the street so they would just go away and hopefully no connections with their illness and the leachate would be made. 4. There were many parts of this film I found to be persuasive and compelling. From a sustainability standpoint, I can draw a parallel between Erin's interactions with the victims involved and sustainability in todays world. If you can level with someone about how they can be sustainable in their lives and how it applies to them, sustainability in the workplace, in your home life and in our schools becomes so much more affective. For instance, explaining to a client to a construction firm that a LEED certified building will give them a 10% return on investment if they install energy saving components will speak to them on a deeper level then just telling them that they should do it. Erin was able to level with the people involved and give them faith that this was a good idea. I was also compelled by the health disorders shown in the film, because I know they probably parallel what actually happened. I really enjoyed the line where Erin is sitting down with PG&E's lawyers and offers them water brought in special from Hinkley, and they subsequently deject it and don't drink it. It's a good representation of the disconnect in corporations, you are really just acting on behalf of the corporation when you work for them, if you were ethically inclined to do everything the corporation was doing you would likely be a really immoral and bad person. 5. I wasn't so compelled by the Hollywood aspects of the film that played out Erin's personal relationships. Honestly, the boyfriend should have been more supportive... she was saving lives! I know that the film had to be somewhat true to life, but I don't feel like Erin's life and actions were this dramatic. 6. This film addresses a wide range of people. This film is more of a story then something that would challenge any sort of political or environmental view, so I don't think that certain audiences would be turned off by anything shown. I wouldn't suggest it for kids just because of the content. 7. This film's goal was to tell a story that actually happened, not to really educate per say. If the filmmakers goal had been to educate us, then better information on how leachate can find its way into the water supply or pathways that a chemical like hexavalent chromium can make someone sick would have been nice. Other information might have been awkward in this film to educate us further, as it wasn't structured as an educational film. 8. The corrective action executed and shown in the film is through legal pathways and the persistence of a few individuals to sue PG&E and get restitution for those involved who were injured. It would have been obviously more effective to have had a mechanism or enough awareness before people became very ill to have stopped the pollution coming from that plant. I would hope in todays world institutions like the EPA or state environmental organizations would have pathways that if there was any suspicion people could reach out and have someone come and look at the situation. I think better awareness of the connection between industry and health effects has become more commonplace now, likely because of instances like Hinkley. 9. After viewing this film, I became much more interested in hexavalent chromium and its health effects. From what I found it doesn't seem to be a pollutant that will affect you right away, only exposure over time will change the way your metabolic processes work. Interestingly enough, the OSHA document I just examined held little strong information toward toxicity, which is strange because the article was titled "Health Effects of Hexavalent Chromium." It only strengthens my already asserted assumptions that the government is lax about many harmful toxics today even though there is more than sufficient proof of the damages that they can cause. I did find however, that under the Center for Disease Control's website there is a way to get OSHA into the workplace to do an evaluation, which is a great step forward as far as protecting public health, that link can be found here: [].

References: "NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations (HHEs)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 02 Nov. 2010. .

United States. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Health Effect of Hexavalent Chromium. OSHA, July 2006. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. .