Tedford+Human+Toxicus

1. The film __Homo Toxicus__, directed by Carole Poliquin and released in 2008. 2. The central argument of the film was based off of modern society's chemical addiction as an additive to products we use, and how toxins subsequently generated have accumulated in our bodies from using the products. The film also discusses the effects on other regions of the world due to production processes and how their children are coping with increased toxicity. 3. The film draws out a lot of unique sustainability problems: 4. The research relating to rats provided excellent scientific back up which I like to see in environmental films because it helps give back up information to skeptics. The entire segment about the Inuit people and there hearing problem really interested me because it's clearly something not getting enough attention in our world. The teacher literally had a headset, not something that should be found in any classroom because the children have such terrible hearing. The irony of the pink Teflon pan was also very compelling as Carole had purchased it to help support breast cancer research, when Teflon itself causes cancer. 5. There were a few points in the film I found to be unconvincing. The sex ratio conversation didn't provide enough statistical data for me to be really intrigued. Although it apparently an issue, I would have liked to see more trend data. I'm also unsure what Carole was trying to accomplish by leaving her plasma with that chemical company, I'm sure as soon as she left that man threw it away. Although it was a sign of being "unhappy" with their practices, it wasn't defiant or action based enough to really compel me into thinking she had made some sort of difference at that company let alone that man's day. No real solutions were offered which was a little bothersome as well. 6. This film best addresses audiences who are past the "everything causes cancer" way of thinking. So often I hear that phrase and I think "yes! yes everything you use and buy does cause cancer, but why... and can you change that?" I think people enlightened already to some environmental issues, especially within America. This film is Canadian based and it would be my hope that an American viewing it would see it as an opportunity to learn about some of the hazards in their own country. The cartoon nature of some of the shots and the way the information was presented makes this film easily accessible to younger generations and teenagers as well, although that sort of method of conveying information might annoy someone older and more scholarly. 7. There are two major items missing in this film that I think could have enhanced its value educationally. Firstly, as mentioned previously, I think that trend graphs for the sex ratio information or better information to that field of science in generally would have really helped. Secondly, I think that more toxic case studies in other parts of the world were needed. Although it is apparent that the Inuit people have an untold story, there are plenty of other locations I'm sure where people who are depending on aquatic life for food are experiencing similar symptoms. I am convinced these people are sick obviously and that they are sick because of chemical poisoning, but what about the person who is on the fence? Could they dismiss it as just a isolated case of a gene pool with poor hearing? More depth could help those who might question Carole's logic on that segment. 8. This film offers few points of intervention other than at the end when they are performing some activism to raise awareness. I think that demanding more strict regulations from our governments is important along with sharing this information, especially about pesticides like atrazene. Another way to act is to simple abstain from buying products rich in chemical constituents, purchase the ecofriendly cleaner or soap and purchase organic vegetables. Farmer's Markets usually offer competitive prices with your local grocer, if you purchase food that is in season. 9. After viewing this film I became really interested in the hearing loss of the Inuit people, so I tried to delve deeper and find similar case studies. I actually found that the Inuit men have hearing loss for an entirely different reason than toxicity, because of the noise of the rifles they use when hunting. (Teacher's Domain, 2003) Below I have linked the video. Apart from this I started to wonder, if its understood that the food they eat is causing these ailments (on some level) then why don't they switch to a different, more land based food source. What I found is that the food they attain from the arctic ocean is so engrained in their culture that they would never give it up. One Inuit is even quoted saying, "for us to be fully healthy, we must have our foods, recognizing the benefits they bring. Contaminants do not affect our souls. Avoiding our food from fear does." (Egede, 1995) This makes me wonder how far their situation will go before the toxicity is so high that it starts cutting Inuit lives significantly short.
 * __How much is too much?__: Carole gets her blood tested for toxicity and finds out she has several heavy metals running through her veins. The doctors tell her this is normal and that its nothing to be worried about. At what point did it become okay to have any toxins in your body, especially compounds like heavy metals that are typically found deep underground away from humans? How do you know how much of a toxin is too much, its not like 4 micrograms causes cancer and 5 micrograms doesn't.
 * __Bio accumulation:__ The presence of Mercury (for example) in larger fish is astounding due to industrial processes and the water cycle. The film accents this issue with a segment on Inuit people and hearing loss. The bio accumulation of pollutants in fish and mammals that humans survive off of takes the issue of toxicity to a whole new level because ingesting a "small" amount of a toxin changes to ingesting a large concentration of a toxin that has bio accumulated in the swordfish in front of you.
 * __Infertility__: Infertility in males who live near agricultural areas is a growing problem especially in Canada. Pesticides that are linked to infertility in frogs are still being used and are causing the same types of issues in humans. This leads me to my next point: that doctors, especially those from Health Canada, are quick to dismiss these claims that there is a connection by saying that there are no similarities between a frog and a human although the problems are concurrent among both species who've been exposed.
 * __Sex Ratio__: The next generation of children have mothers that have been exposed to toxicity in their lives and are giving birth to children that will be experiencing toxicity in the womb. This is leading to less male fetuses being born, which is throwing off the sex ratio. It doesn't seem there is a lot of conclusive information on this because trends ebb and flow and this could be a weak spot in time.

[|NOVA Video on Inuit Men Hearing Loss]

References:

Egede, I. (1995). Inuit food and Inuit health: Contaminants in perspective. Presentation to Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Seventh General Assembly, Nome, Alaska. July.

Teachers' Domain, Moriussaq: A Case Study in Hearing Loss, published September 26, 2003, retrieved on September 30, 2010, http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.reg.inuithear/