Spartz+Annotation+2

Annotation #2 9/06/12 //Homo Toxicus//

Carole Poliquin wrote and directed the movie //Homo Toxicus// released in 2008. The film’s main focus was on human generated chemicals and their impacts on humans and other living organisms. Through many interviews with scientific experts and politicians on both sides of the argument as well as interviews with people who were being affected, the point was made that progressive chemicals produced by humans were placing many toxins into the air that were affecting the genetics of many species. This film had many numbers and scientists to back up its claims. Since the film had many French speakers there was some dubbed portions that viewers just had to trust were right. Judging by tone differences in some instances, it is understandable that viewers might have some doubts as to the accuracy of the voiceovers. Overall, there was some emotional appeal since the movie followed one women’s journey to discover what chemicals were being introduced to her environment and what levels of those potential toxins were considered acceptable. In my opinion, the personal aspect of her worry was meant to be relatable and cause people to question the same things in their own life. I think this film is meant to further convince the people that are already having their suspicions about the safety of the products they use in everyday life.

Political, technological, and ecological problems were the primary arguments for why human progress is dangerous. National regulations to restrict chemical emissions are not feasible since there are too many people and businesses that can influence the decisions politicians make. The film did not offer much in the way of potential corrections, but it did suggest that most policy changes will have to come from local governments, since the national one has too many stakeholders presenting it with information whose goals are to keep the restrictions from being too tight. This I believe since companies are worried about the bottom line and I have seen that rarely do people consider national or even international air quality to be an issue that is capable of being regulated since they tend to think only close proximity can affect them. The more that local governments do to help would greatly help the situation overall situation, but I don’t know that that will necessarily be enough to cause massive change. The other potential correction was the banning of pesticides which I doubt will ever happen fully. It would be too much of a lifestyle change for many to make. People are used to the technology that seemingly makes their lives easier. The opening cartoon segment made it obvious that Poliquin thought that progress was becoming more dangerous because, as humans evolved and began industrializing, we have become more capable of harming our environment. The convenience of having a computer or television however won’t be outweighed by the potential for harmful toxins to be released, so unless industry is forced to change somewhere, it is not likely that those toxins will disappear from households. These toxins are not just affecting household air quality; they are also escaping and causing changes to the “natural environment”. The definition of natural environment includes the concept of the world being untouched by human pollution. Obviously it has been a long time since this was the case, but I think that it is still upsetting that human interaction with the environment is causing such significant changes to many of the species on the planet. There were many citations throughout the movie about the impact of pollution on fish, cows, and frogs, not to mention the human population as well. The main focus was on the impact on the reproductive systems of these animals which makes it clear that these problems will affect future generations and that they aren’t just temporary. The fact that 4 million tons of chemical substances are emitted per year in North America, discounting transportation and pesticides, is a scary one. Even though I could not find a source for that particular statistic to confirm it, everything I did find was on the same order of magnitude. It is hard for me to believe that it is impossible to ignore this as a problem.

Overall, I was convinced by the information presented in this film. The arguments that I found particularly compelling were that we are “crossing the line of progress and self destruction”. The chemicals produced to give us our standard of living are affecting gene structures and that seems like a problem that can quickly escalate, especially since the reproductive organs are being majorly affected. I also found acceptable risk being the standard of the Canadian government intriguing. It makes sense to take some risks but the potential for humans being affected as an overall population seems like an excessive risk to me. The problem with my finding this convincing is that I already was convinced that this was a problem before the movie even started so I was not able to view this film from an unbiased perspective. There were a few instances where I understand that people might not be convinced based on how the movie was presented. However, I already know people that do feel the same way as the “movie edited” views, so those comments still seemed legitimate. I feel that this movie could have been better if it hadn’t used so many “scientific terms”. When someone gets overloaded with terms they don’t know, I find that they generally accept that the person talking knows more about the subject than they do or at least they become so overwhelmed that they just stop listening. I know this isn’t always the case, but in order to be better understood by the greater public, I think the vocabulary needed to be adjusted a little bit. I also think that using subtitles instead of dubbing would have been a more trustworthy way of communicating the information. The film needed better transitions too. It may have been that we were watching the shortened version, but the movie jumped around so much that even the statistics were almost lost in the confusion.

The movie caused me to want to look further into PBDE’s since Poliquin based much of her argument around them. What I was able to find did back up her claims that they are found in many objects that we use in our homes on a daily basis and that the number of them are increasing in magnitude within the human body. They are found in blood, fatty tissue, umbilical cord blood, and breast milk, which Poliquin made clear in the movie. I was trying to find an argument that stated that these claims were overstated in any way, but either I am just bad at searching online or I honestly could not find any sources that claimed that. The fact that I couldn’t find anything to dispute these claims further convinced me that this is a problem that needs to be regulated. I was also curious if there was an easily found table of acceptable exposure limits according to the U.S. Looking through OSHA’s and the EPA’s website, the only one I was able to find for new chemicals in production had the disclaimer: “ This document, however, is for informational purposes only and is NOT itself legally operative, binding, or enforceable. ” The document then refers the viewer to a table where he or she can figure out for themselves whether the chemical exposure is reportable or not. I did not see any references for material safety data sheets which I feel should be the first reference for people who don’t know the dangers. Of course with those you have to know precisely which chemicals you are searching for, it isn’t going to be a simple table, so one has to know the common air problems in the area they are concerned about.

References: “Healthy Milk, Healthy Baby.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Accessed: 9/06/12. Revised: 3/25/05. <[]>. “TSCA 5(e) Exposure-Based Policy: Criteria.” EPA. Accessed 9/09/12. Revised: 6/18/12. <[]> “New Chemical Exposure Limits (NCELs).” EPA. Accessed 9/09/12. Revised: 9/16/11. <[]>.