Ryan+Tozier+Shelter+in+Place

Shelter in Place Zed Nelson 2010

The central argument of the film of that the oil industry has a devastating impact on the health of everyone who lives in Port Arthur. The film argues that this is unacceptable. The oil companies tries to tell the people who live there that all the have to do to stay safe is stay inside and close off every opening so air can’t circulate with the air outside. The problem is that not everyone’s how is airtight, and the company doesn’t offer help to fix that even when the have “unavoidable accidents” dozens of times a year. Children are repeatedly being exposed to cancer cause agents in the agents where they go to school and at their playgrounds. As a result almost everyone in the community know a child with acute asthma. When there are emergencies and chemicals are released into the air notification of the public comes too slow, and many people are able to smell the chemical well before they are warned to get inside. The film tries to make it clear that the plan to Shelter in Place is ineffective at preventing exposure to chemicals. To me, it sounds almost like “Duck and Cover,” which told US citizens that in the event of a nuclear explosion you should “Duck and Cover.”

This film talks topics of sustainability like air pollution, health and safety of exposed communities, and the monitoring of emissions. This basis of the film is that air pollution from the oil refinery is being released when there are chemical spills. This of course refers to toxic chemicals that are particularly dangerous. The refinery also releases other pollutants on a daily basis. The pollution that the oil refinery releases has been a problem for the local town of Port Arthur who experience abnormally high rates of asthma and other chronic breathing problems. Some of the problems have been directly linked to the nearby oil refinery.

The part of the film that I found the most persuasive was the in the beginning at the town meeting. Here the speaker asks the audience, “Who here knows of a child suffering from acute asthma” and nearly everyone hand goes up. I found this the most compelling part of the film because it highlights just how big of a problem this community is suffering from. Also because the film uses children as the example, the impact is especially powerful.

During the film there is one point where an attorney gets up in front of a group of local people affected by the pollution from the oil refinery. This is the least compelling support in the film because this speaker talks in an uninterested voice about an issue that greatly impacts the whole community. He tries to make use of different speaker skills, but he doesn’t convince me that he really cares about this problem. Because he doesn’t care I find myself caring less.

The film proposes that people take legal action against the oil refinery so that they can get their compensation. It also suggests that people in this area move to a different town. Unfortunately the film also shows that these methods can be very ineffective. People who win their suit end up with small rewards and the bulk of the money goes the attorney fees. Because this area is so impoverished of a community it is difficult or impossible to move to out of Port Arthur.

Shelter in Place is a film that helps viewers understand how their own health and well being are influenced by both proximate and far off causes. It gives a history of the disasters and decision make failures of the oil refinery. The film helps viewers understand some other the factors that affect environmental problems, including vested interests.

To increase the educational value of the film a doctor could have appeared and detailed exactly what is happening in the body because of the pollutants. Or a brief discussion as to why the government doesn’t take direct action when so many people have had illnesses that are related to the refinery.

After watching this film I sought out information regarding the current problems at the refinery. What I found was that there was a shut down as recent as November 16 due to a spill and a fire. This problem clearly has not changed since the release of this video. [] I also wondered if the government has taken action previously against the oil refinery. What I found the refinery was charged a 4 million dollar fine in 2007 and that “more than $232 million will be spent on injunctive relief through 2014.” I was astounded that even after paying these fines there are still so many “accidents”. []