Allergy+Planet+Annotations


 * Film annotation #3 Allergy Planet**
 * Ryan Tozier**
 * 9/13/15**
 * Kim Fortun**


 * 1. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

That around the world the numbers of people with allergies as well as those with severe allergies is growing at a steady pace and not only do we not know how to stop it, we don’t even understand what is causing it.


 * 2. What sustainability issues does the film draw out?**

Air pollution potentially is a cause of allergies.


 * 3. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One third of adults and 40% of children around the world have some type of allergy, which I find compelling because it gives perspective of the grandness of the issue. It affects the most isolated island on the planet, which requires seven days to get to by boat, 50% of people on island have asthma. This is compelling because the remote location of the island would lead me to believe that it would be unaffected by this rise in allergies and asthma, but the opposite is true instead.

Removal of skin barrier through different skin care products, showers, and what not makes us vulnerable to allergies unlike in the past when personal hygiene wasn’t so meticulous. This information was unexpected and enlightening.

Barbados tenfold increase in 20 years as well as severity. These numbers are very scary and thus made an impact on me. The antibody IGE is used to fight diseases also, specifically involved in the allergic disease evolved against worms. When there are no more worms, IGE binds to harmless allergens instead. Again very interesting information because it goes more deeply into the root cause of allergens than I had hoped and I appreciate that.


 * 4. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

People with MSC think they are allergic to everything, it is so bad that to be interview the crew needed to cover camera with aluminum. The disease is not recognized by medical authorities as being a real disease and without personal experience on the issue and no authoritative proponents I can’t trust the information I learned from this section.


 * 5. What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

The film does not suggest corrective action, but in the case of roadside pollution being an irritant for those with asthma. The main issue seemed to be that they placed schools near the roadside and the kids were exposed to the pollutants. I would suggest that kids have their schedules changed so that they were exposed when traffic be at its mildest, or adding an air monitoring system and only allowing students outside when levels were in a tolerable region. Because there are so many causes of allergies and is so poorly understood it is difficult to suggest preventative measures.


 * 6. What would improve the environmental educational value of the film?**

Analysis and explanation of regions with especially low rates of allergies.


 * 7. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Describe what you learned in a couple of sentences, providing at least two supporting references).**

I learned that the science of allergies isn’t understood nearly as well as I thought. In addition, there seems to be much more danger involved with my everyday choices in the long run than I previously had known. I am compelled to seek out more current information on this issue as it mentions current studies but it was published in 2009 so its information is now outdated. In addition, I would like to know more about the different cultures as it seemed that the film only really covered developed nations I would like to know more about the effect of rising number of allergies in developing nation like India.