ProsackHenry-Homo+Toxicus

=Homo Toxicus=

Homo Toxicus was a documentary film made by Carole Poliquin and was released in 2008.    
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**
 * 2. ****What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **
 * The main issue that this movie discusses is the toxic chemicals that exist in our daily lives and how they are affecting our health, environment, and our societal structure The majority of these chemicals are not even regulated or tested by the FCC and the EPA, and are being used recklessly all over every aspect of our lives. These large corporations are putting chemicals into the products that we use, without knowing the health or environmental affects they may have on us. **
 * 3. ****What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **
 * The main sustainability problem that this film introduces is the corporations that are developing these chemicals and drugs that are not getting properly tested before they are put to public use. This is partly due to the corrupted system between the government, its agencies, and the large companies that are involved. Another issue is the environmental effects that these chemicals that are being introduced into our world. Our rivers are being contaminated with chemicals such as PCBs, mercury, and PBDEs. This is in direct correlation with another problem that this film has demonstrated. Health issues are a major problem with these chemicals. They can weaken the immune system, allowing the body to become more susceptible to diseases and sickness. There have been some studies that suggest that certain chemicals cause certain health problems. However, there are no studies that consider the combination of all these contaminants in our bodies no matter how low the levels of one contaminant may be. Fertility and birth defects are result of this as well. Food is another problem that these companies cause. Hormones that can induce cancer are being unregulated and being injected into our food sources. These companies have risk management in order to assess if the chemical should be put to use. What’s a small risk? **
 * 4.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The most compelling part of the film was the health effects that these chemicals have on people. This really scares me to know the fact that both the government and these corporations do not know what these chemicals can do, and yet they are still implemented. In Chemical Valley, Ontario, there are 2 times more girls than boys born. There is a significant amount of increasing miscarriages and breathing conditions. Animals have been showing reproductive problems. Could this start happening to humans? We trust in the products that we use and the areas we live in. This needs to change.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?

There were no parts of the film that I wasn’t compelled by.

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.?

This movie has made me aware of the products that we use into our daily lives. I will be more cautious of the chemicals that I use and how they may affect me and the environment around me. That’s all I feel I can do at the moment. However, bringing awareness to the public about these problems will help make a change in legislation. Corporations are a major problem in other issues and problems, which is the center for this particular sustainability problem.


 * 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?**

The film addresses the college students and on. These age groups purchase the products that cause these problems. I believe that the viewers of this movie will be more aware of the chemicals that reside in their own homes. They may not promote changes on a bigger scale, yet they will make necessary changes in order to protect themselves and their loved ones.


 * 8.** **What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

The film promoted the questioning of the chemicals being used at the governmental level. Canada showed how this kind of intervention is successful at times. Six health officials were fired for allowing certain hormones being used in cows, which caused health issues with the people that consumed them as well as the cows themselves. By putting political pressure on the government, restrictions and regulations can be put in place in order to reduce the amount of problems that these corporations are causing. They can stop the dumping of dangerous chemicals into our water supply, as well as regulate and test the drugs that are being administered to the public.


 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

I think by showing more images of the detrimental health effects on humans from the chemicals would directly help environmental education. The river dumps have a huge problem to the ecology and wildlife of the surrounding areas, and by showing how these environmental problems affect us may be the key to solving the problem.