Book Review


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Book Review

  1. 1. Writing a Critical Book Review<br />
  2. 2. Name Your Poison, People<br />Reviewed by Krista Foss <br />Published Friday, May. 29, 2009 3:34PM EDT<br />Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health<br />by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, Knopf Canada, 323 pages, $32<br />Plunge your hands into a well-stocked toy box and no doubt your fingers will alight upon an example of modern chemistry's ingenuity: the soft, rubbery toy that bounces back after being squeezed, pummelled or chewed on. That vinyl plaything owes its pliability to chemicals called phthalates. And it's these invisible additives that leave the toy box stewing in a distinctly modern dilemma: A growing body of evidence links the chemicals to “de-masculinizing” effects in infant boys, according to Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, written by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie. <br />
  3. 3. Introduction: Purpose and background<br />Over nine chapters, Smith, a biologist and executive director of Environmental Defence, and Lourie, an environmental consultant, examine how the very chemicals that relieve us of bad smells, unsightly stains, sticky foods, invasive weeds and flammability – not to mention brittle toys – threaten our own and our children's health. It's a fascinating and frightening read leavened by frequent references to pop culture – everything from Saturday Night Live episodes to quotes from Miss Marple – as well as the authors' brio in using their own bodies as test subjects. <br />
  4. 4. Summary with a specific example<br />Smith and Lourie set up a series of experiments in which they intensify their exposure to everyday toxins, then take before-and-after blood and urine samples to gauge the changes in their bodies. In one instance, they play Guitar Hero for nearly 48 hours straight in a hermetically sealed room in Lourie's condominium that has been freshly sprayed with perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), a class of chemicals used as a stain-resistant treatment for rugs and drapes. <br />
  5. 5. Comparison to Other Works<br />It's a tried-and-true narrative conceit. In his 2004 documentary, Super Size Me, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock subsisted for 30 days on the excessive portions of McDonald's menu in order to expose the dark side of fast food. It wasn't the most scientifically rigorous method, but his weight gain, mood changes and doctors cluck-clucking ominously about his compromised liver were compelling viewing. <br />
  6. 6. Summary<br />Unlike quarter-pounders and milkshakes, however, what makes everyday chemicals so insidious is that humans are exposed to small amounts over many years and their effects are not immediately evident. Except for feeling a bit woozy after a few days in the room rank with PFCs, Lourie and Smith show no outward symptoms of their multiple chemical exposures. So they have to rely on what is revealed in their blood and urine analysis for drama, and that is uneven. <br />
  7. 7. Evaluation<br />The experiments feel a bit inconsistent and ill-conceived, not to mention rushed Three days of eating several all-tuna meals and snacks more than doubles Lourie's blood-mercury levels. Smith sees a nearly 3,000-per-cent hike in his urine levels of the antibacterial agent triclosan after two days of using an array of personal-care products – from facial cleanser to toothpaste – that could be in anybody's home. Yet their Guitar Hero marathon renders no change in either man's blood levels of the stain-resisting PFCs; the reader has to settle for assurances the chemical is problematic in a way the short-lived experiment can't track. <br />
  8. 8. Mixed evaluation: negative<br />Meanwhile, the authors don't measure how their blood or urine levels are affected by exposure to pesticides and herbicides (Ontario banned lawn-care products while the book was being written) or brominated fire retardants, opting instead to rely on their base or background levels. Subsequently, the experiments feel a bit inconsistent and ill-conceived, not to mention rushed. <br />
  9. 9. Mixed Evaluation: positive<br />Luckily for the reader, there's a more compelling narrative to fall back on in Slow Death by Rubber Duck: the rise of the different chemical producers' oligopolies. Unlike the tobacco industry (whose lobbyists they've hired), chemical companies have an advantageous dexterity. They can appear to be responsibly phasing out a contentious toxin while simultaneously marketing a close chemical relative that will make them just as much money before the science detailing its effects on human health catches up. They can also leverage consumer fears – notably of bacteria and fire – to get their chemicals into a huge array of products. According to Slow Death by Rubber Duck, low levels of antibacterial agents are now embedded in everything from garden hoses to sports socks. <br />
  10. 10. Conclusion<br />Just recently, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association scored considerable media coverage for an industry-funded study showing that reusable shopping bags – which many consumers choose over plastic bags in order to be environmentally responsible – pose a health risk by exposing Canadians to “dangerous bacteria.” Information that so baldly wants to scare consumers into what Lourie and Smith call “pollution nihilism” is an everyday toxin too. A book such as Slow Death by Rubber Duck is an important and timely antidote. <br />Krista Foss is a Hamilton-based writer and fan of reusable shopping bags. She is purging her home of non-stick surfaces and rubber ducks.<br />© 2011 The Globe and Mail Inc. All Rights Reserved.<br />
  11. 11. Heading<br />Most reviews start off with a heading that includes all the bibliographic information about the book <br />Title. Author. Place of publication: publisher, date of publication. Number of pages:<br />Taking Soaps Seriously: The World of Guiding<br />Light. Michael Intintoli. New York: Praeger, 1984.<br />248 pp.<br />
  12. 12. Introduction<br />The length of an introduction is usually two or three paragraphs for a longer book review. <br />Announce the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain the topic of the text. <br />Present the purpose of the text and summarise the main findings. <br />Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the text (positive, negative or a mixed evaluation).<br />
  13. 13. Summary<br />Present a summary of the key points along with a limited number of examples. You can also briefly explain the author’s intentions throughout the text and you may briefly describe how the text is organised. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review.  <br />
  14. 14. Evidence<br />What kind of evidence does the author use to prove his or her points?<br />Is the evidence convincing? Why or why not?<br />
  15. 15. Other Books Like It?<br />Is the book unique? Does it add new information? What<br />group of readers, if any, would find this book most<br />useful?<br />
  16. 16. Critique<br />The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths and weakness of the book. <br />
  17. 17. Critique<br />Base your discussion on specific criteria. <br /> What are the most appropriate criteria by which to<br />judge the book ?<br />
  18. 18. You can choose how to sequence your critique:<br />In long reviews, you can address each criteria you choose in a paragraph, including both negative and positive points. For very short critical reviews include a paragraph of positive aspects and another of negative.<br />
  19. 19. If your critique is more positive than negative, then present the negative points first and the positive last.<br />
  20. 20. If your critique is more negative than positive, then present the positive points first and the negative last.<br />
  21. 21. If there are both strengths and weakness for each criterion you use, you need to decide overall what your judgment is. For example, you may want to comment on a key idea in the text and have both positive and negative comments. You could begin by stating what is good about the idea and then concede and explain how it is limited in some way. While this example shows a mixed evaluation, overall you are probably being more negative than positive.<br />
  22. 22. Conclusion<br /> Restate your overall opinion.<br /> Briefly present recommendations.<br /> In order to sound fair and reasonable, <br /> include a qualification or explanation <br /> of your judgment. <br />
  23. 23. Provide a list of references<br />Good reviews include outside sources <br />to support your evaluation.<br />