Do you agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned? Why or why not? Do the arguments presented by the site conform to the highest standards of rationality? What could be done to improve the rationality of the arguments?
30 thoughts on “DHMO.org”
Comments are closed.
Before going to this website, I had never heard of dihydrogen monoxoide. DHMO.org makes a lot of claims on the site on all the uses of this chemical, most of which sound far-fetched. For instance, it says that the DHMO is used by “Kids who play Beyblades”, “international travel bloggers” and by “both the KKK and NAACP during rallies and marches”, but failed to explain the exact usage, so it really didn’t make sense to me.
There were no citations or links for the research to support the claims, which made it difficult for me to believe their implied conspiracy theory as to why we haven’t heard more about this and why it’s still widely used.
The part that made me conclude that DHMO was a complete hoax was the section on whether DHMO can improve marriage.
The outlandish usages, claims and unsupported research all contributed the lack or rationality in the arguments. So, no DHMO, should definitely not be banned based on this site. But it did provoke my interest enough to Google DHMO, and I had a good chuckle.
Based on DHMO.org’s purported research and claims, I do not believe that DHMO should be banned. First, I do not believe the claims because I spotted many inconsistencies in the argument that DHMO is harmful to human’s health and environment. For instance, the author frequently asserts that DHMO is toxic and lethal to humans, even in small amounts, yet later directly states that “low-levels of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable.” Also, the body of research in the “DHMO Research” tab consists of high school and middle school students’ class projects. In the absence of sturdy, peer-reviewed scientific research and evidence, I am very skeptical of supporting an outright substance ban.
Second, the author overused emotional appeals to convince us that DHMO should be banned. He use words and phrases linking DHMO to death, disfigurement, and natural disasters, yet does not provide any evidence to support his claims. He also used fear-inducing images like the skull and cross-bones frequently on the pages of the site, attempting to make DHMO an active threat in the minds of his audience. When the author included a conspiracy theory, it was clear that he wanted to prey on the fears of his audience in order to make them paranoid of the dangers DHMO could pose. Last, the author uses highly technical and scientific jargon to bolster his credibility with the audience, but in the absence of sound logic and presence of unjustified emotion, it is clear that he intends to mislead us.
While, I personally understand that DHMO is a harmful substance, the creators of the website do very little to provide a convincing argument that it should be banned. When I first opened the website, I thought I had clicked the wrong link. DHMO.org looks like a website created in 1996 that was intended to advertise some ridiculous weight loss solution. The first page is very sloppy, quite busy and extremely confusing. The donation link located on the right corner is so tacky with Visa, Pay Pal and Master Card logos. Overall, I am appalled by this website.
There is almost too much content on the FAQ link. It’s simply information overload. Yet, the link holds content that would by no means fortify the author’s argument. The multiple surveys they cite lack statistics and the writers almost seem to get lost in their own narrative. They also use obscure rhetoric and abbreviations that an ordinary reader wouldn’t truly understand such as, “dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood.” What is ECF? What is ICF? If you are trying to garner moral and financial support from the everyday person, use language he or she can understand. The links are very lengthy and very wordy and thus the reader can’t quickly decipher the overall theme of the website. It simply takes too long and too much effort to read.
Not only does the website need a major update graphically, but content wise it needs a total reboot. The links on the side should be consolidated and the writers need to use succinct and factual evidence, backed up by real life statistics. Not everyone is interested in the harmful effects of DHMO, so in order to keep one’s attention, the author must use common language that the everyday person would comprehend. There is no rationality to the way the argument is presented on DHMO.org. The website is a complete disaster.
whoops…meant to say is not a harmful substance!!
Hello, I agree the argument for DHMO is harmful is not convincing, there is many contradictory information. Agreed that needs to provide more statistic, research, real facts.
I don’t agree with the creators of DHMO.org because of the lack of evidence. I never heard of DHMO which is why I was more interested in understanding the claims. I don’t think DHMO should be banned yet because there aren’t enough legitimate studies that conclude that DHMO is causing innumerable deaths.
The arguments presented by the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality because it discusses the “what”, but not the “how”. In other words, DHMO is claimed to cause deaths, but how are the deaths caused?
Also, I don’t quite understand how DHMO relates to school violence. I remember witnessing school violence as a high school student and almost of the arguments and violence were due to gossip. The site also mentions that DHMO causes high school shooting which is going a little too far and I don’t see the correlation. I would like to know how DHMO is causing people to shoot people in the high school. Many of the high school shooters are mental patients or had really bad childhoods and upbringing.
Another part of the site I don’t agree with is where chemical analysis of DHMO is explained. Instead of simplifying what DHMO is, how it directly affects people, and whether there are distinct cases, they just used scientific words that most of us aren’t able to decipher. I believe that a site needs to be organized and to the point if it wants to be taken seriously. In other words, this issue may be relevant to the scientific world but ordinary people should be able to understand it too. It important to use simple language in order for everyone to understand the topic. I think the creators wanted to use scientific words to legitimize the topic, but the opposite happened. Lastly, when I did independent research on DHMO, I was able to find out way more information that was easy to comprehend and was engaging.
In order to have the highest standard of rationality, one must understand its audience and be cognizant of the explanation presented, word choice, and provide concrete examples. This applies to the political world too. A political actor must be aware of their public, their background, education, and experiences. They must be aware of the words they use because the same message could be taken differently if the wrong words are used. Lastly, the kinds of examples we present to gauge people is also important. The examples presented by DHMO are pretty vague and unbelievable. Audiences need examples they can directly relate or connect to.
Based on the information presented by DHMO.org website, there is not enough evidence for me to come to the conclusion as to if DHMO should be banned or not. The website listed a lot of information that are irrelevant or does not really explain anything.
Although the website had a lot of links to many different things, there was not enough valuable details that can be used to make any decision.
On the website there was a very lengthy list of places or thing that contain DHMO but it failed to tell us how DHMO affect us as people. On the website it stated that the use of DHMO makes married couples very happy, it aids athletes do better with their sport and it also aid farmers get large production of milk when DHMO is given to the cows. All these effects from the use of DHMO, to an average person is a good thing. If it isthe author of DHMO.org’s plan to prevent people from using products that have DHMO in them, then I do not believe they did a get job scaring people away from it. The website listed a lot of very bad outcomes that are linked with the use of DHMO but does not say how these bad outcomes come about or give detailed evidence. As such I do not think the argument presented conformed to the high standard of rationality.
If the author is able to provide evidence that everyone can relate with and use plain English to explain the dangers associated with the use of DHMO then it’s argument can be viewed as meeting the high standards of rationality.
I do not agree that DHMO should be banned since the arguments presented by the website are not specific and the evidence is not backed by clearly identified sources, and is often very conflicting. The website claims that inhaling DHMO is dangerous with many hazardous effects and can be “lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.” This to me seems incredulous and almost laughable, and the reasoning does not make any sense. There are no real convincing scientific studies or specific qualified specialist identified to verify the claims and information presented.
Indeed, the claims made seem to be sweeping generalizations which cannot possibly be proven or measured. One such example is that tumors of ALL terminal cancer patients have shown evidence of DHMO, or that ALL floodwaters where deaths have occurred, were found to have DHMO involved as a cause. How was this measured? It is not humanly possible to measure All deaths and All floodwaters worldwide. This to me is an impossible task and a false claim, since there is no way to capture ALL deaths, nor prove that the floodwaters were caused by this chemical. All the claims made by this website are incredulous, as this DHMO compound is reported to be responsible for everything from hurricane Katrina, killer cyclones, El Nino, faulty brakes, cancerous tumors and death, acid rain, and vicious dog attacks. Yet despite all these devastating negative effects, amazingly the site claims that ingestion will actually improve your marriage. To me this is totally absurd and indeed an over-reach, as there is no scientific peer-reviewed evidence to support any of the claims presented.
I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. There is not enough research provided to demonstrate that DHMO is truly a harmful substance. The website makes several claims without any proper support. Although the website provides links to research, the “research studies” posted are actually just surveys conducted in local high schools that asks students if DHMO should be banned or not. These are not strong pieces of evidence to rule that the claims made are rational or valid. If the creators of the website would like to make more convincing arguments, then randomized controlled and in-depth studies of deathly cases should be provided for the readers. Links for major catastrophic events listed on the website would be useful as well.
In addition, the Mineral Safety Data Sheet provided lists DHMO as a stable substance. The information from the Mineral Safety Data Sheet does not pose major threats to individuals in contact with the substance. The website also provides broad lists of products that contain DHMO. It seems as though it is in most items used on a daily basis that are harmless, such as shampoo and juice.
The website does not provide images of what the substance looks like or what its packaging may look like. Most photos on the website are clip art, further making this substance present itself as non life-threatening. The website does not explicitly state the components of DHMO, though it is implied by its name that it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Both of these elements are likely non life-threatening when handled properly. In fact, we need oxygen to survive.
I wouldn’t draw a conclusion either way based on this website. The information on this site is presented as that of a special interest group. There aren’t really facts, just baseless and fairly bizzarre claims (no scientific support) and it has the feel of a conspiracy theory group. In order for it to be taken seriously, it would help if information was presented without drawing any conclusions. That is, present the scientific facts in a simple and concise manner and show how various independent sources confirm the same facts. Let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Hello,
I agree there are many bizarre claims on the website, no real argument, with backing research and statistics or real scientist.
I was not convinced by DHMO.org that DHMO should be banned. As I was reading the FAQ section I noticed that it did not provide links or citations to any of the studies or statistics that it mentioned, which had me questioning the credibility of the information provided. The websites claim that DHMO is linked to school violence was very vague. The website simply said DHMO was “involved” in school shootings but did not clarify how this chemical compound was used. The website also stated that DHMO could improve your marriage, when ingested regularly compared to couples that never ingest DHMO. This was conflicting because before this the website mentioned that DHMO can cause “death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities, prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage and excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side- effects”. Nonetheless, I was not convinced by the website’s marriage claim, since yet again the author failed to provide further details or a link to a study that concluded this. I was also confused as to why the website would promote the positive use of this chemical compound when the website’s goal is to get this banned. If the website had cited studies that proved the dangers of DHMO and included details on how the use of this chemical compound has been dangerous, its argument could have been much stronger.
The evidence presented on the DHMO website use language that is often seen floating around the internet in social media posts and “news” articles. The website serves as a platform to use language to avoid presenting fact. The website creates links between DMHO and different events in order to “prove” that DHMO has many negative side affects. While DMHO may be present in these occurrences, such as school shootings, there is no solid evidence that is presented in this website to prove that it is the cause.
This is an interesting and extreme example of the literature that is circulated often. While I’m not completely familiar with the term, I believe that the DHMO has been found in this series of disasters is an example of circular reasoning. The presences of DHMO is found during school shootings, therefore according to this website, school shootings would be caused by DHMO.
Wow. This was a close one. DHMO’s website flaws are mostly the lack of citation and credible sources in for it’s information. I googled Nathan Zohner who was the lead expert and saw the whole hoax become of itself. It’s interesting what a quick Google check did to uncover an alternative purpose to this website. Water is a touchy subject knowing of what is currently happening out in the Midwest with Flint water crisis and Standing Rock tribe fight for Water rights. So, in the context of what is happening in current events, there may be a potentially harmful purpose of this website.
I don’t agree with the creators that DHMO should be banned. I would like to support their cause, but the arguments provided were not sufficient enough. I’m always cautious with accepting information so I was really skeptical when reading some of the facts. Any person can make a website and claim its content as factual. I’m hoping this isn’t the case with the creators, however if they wish to obtain credibility they should at the very least provide links for their sources. And even then the sources must contain scientific merit. Overall this website was vague and poorly designed.
I do not agree with the website that DHMO should be banned because it lacks scientifical evidence. It starts with interesting facts that it is toxic, and it can cause diseases and environmental hazards. The “evidence” of 86% of the population or 90% people who were in the DHMO study want it banned. The question came to me is why is there no proof of the study and when it happened? If so many people disapproved it, why is there not much coverage on this? The list of who uses DHMO was quite peculiar and humorous such as cult rituals, members of the church of Scientology, KKK and NAACP, members of Congress, kids who play Beyblades (my brother and I played them), young writers, computer scientists, or school shooters. There are no claims, no studies, no reports, or citations to support it. The symptoms appeared to like symptoms when you over drink large amounts of water. This is when my hypothesis was correct that this website is a hoax from the facts, who uses it, and the symptoms. This website gives a bad example of how to present rationality in an argument. I mean how to improve this hoax, is to prove that it is wrong. However, it does give a reminder that for an argument to have a good rationality, it should have facts backed up by educational sources with citations.
Only looking at DHMO.org, I cannot agree with the creators of the website that DHMO should be banned. It is possible that with more research on my own I would agree with them, but solely looking at the site, I simply cannot. First of all, aesthetically the website looks completely outdated. So I cannot trust the authenticity and whether or not this information is even still relevant. Furthermore, even after reading the entire FAQ page, I still do not completely understand what DHMO is. Additionally, even some of the pieces of information that may be convincing, such a study which shows that the vast majority of people agree that DHMO should be banned, does not have any citation or way to read more about the study.
While the line of logic is rational, the pieces of evidence are not necessarily credible. However there is rationality – DHMO is an invisible chemical that is used in nuclear bombs and can do terrible things like mutate DNA. Therefore, it should be banned in the United States. This line of rationality is indeed logical. However, I still have many questions. How do we know that it does these terrible things, like mutate DNA? How is it obtained and used by people in these various materials or as an enhancer?
To improve the rationality of the argument, the reader must first feel as if he/she is on a credible website. Therefore, the website needs to be significantly cleaned up aesthetically. Further, it needs to be better organized with categories and links. Additionally, some sort of citations need to be included to increase the credibility of the information provided. There is also a lack of information about the policy surrounding the potential banning of DHMO. Has this issue ever been brought to policy makers? If so, how?
Based on the presentation of the website, I wouldn’t even consider taking their approach on DHMO seriously. This website looks like a conspiracy theory hoax. I had to force myself to read the argument. Even so, they did not convince me enough to support their clause. The website mentions that DHMO has all there causes and effects but they do not provide on serious examples, no case studies and no scholarly input. If they wanted to be taking seriously not only do they need a much updated website but better organization and facts citied by articles. There is so much more development that needs to take place. The argument based on the website does not confirm to the highest standards of rationality. The author seems bothered by this issue but doesn’t make it so that “regular” people would understand. The authors uses jargon and within the FAQs doesn’t give credible sources. This writing seems rushed and not thought through and would turn people away from the thought of supporting this cause. Lastly, the author does not mention where he got his original information from, for all I know he got this information from somewhere and trying to pass it as his own.
After googling to try and decipher the meaning behind this website, I learnt that Dihydrogen Monoxide is the scientific name for water. This website is simply an example of how unfamiliar language, a seemingly logical position, and a persuasively argued position can lead people to form positions about things they have not researched on their own.
I looked at the website for about a minute before I got suspicious. I’m not entirely sure what made me suspicious – partly the website itself had kind of an amateurish look, then the language was so alarmist but it also clearly said the cdc did not categorize this substance in any way. So, I just googled the name and came up with a wikipedia page that explained the history of this “hoax” and how it has been used for years to teach critical thinking.
For the purpose of the exercise, the website is NOT reliable. To begin with, the website is poorly designed. It looks like something from 1990 (and I use this year mainly because its when the WWW was made available. Other than that I would say its from 1950. The website shows little effort in design and does not inspire reliability or foundation. The arguments made are very vague and do not have credible sources. The author/creator rambles about the different types of impacts that result from Dihydrogen Monoxde (cough cough), but provides no hard data or evidence on the claims. The content is too general and lacks the ability to engage with any audience in particular. For the portion I read on this website, there were ZERO sources (reliable) and ZERO data or statistics on specific findings on research performed on the subject matter. The images on the website are childish, not-professional, and lack any aspect of academic background. There is also poor structure to how the arguments are laid out. These are mentioned in a very random order. Additionally, the images, in some instances seemed inappropriate for the topic being discussed. If you have researched well enough, you will know what “cough cough means”.
Based on the website, your cough indicates DHMO contamination. Please get to the nearest health center and consider not returning to class until fully recovered.
Any successful argument first lays a foundation for the person to whom the information is directed, and by way of a series of logically connected points, builds on top of this foundation to attempt to convince their audience of the argument. The authors of the website DHMO.ORG totally avoided this approach. DHMO.ORG launched straight into a diatribe about an alleged controversy surrounding Dihydrogen Monoxide without properly explaining what Dihydrogen Monoxide is, and then going on to highlight the issues surrounding it.
Additionally, the individual or organization that is presenting an argument has to appear to have some credibility. The website of the organization, with its disorganized layout, scattered information, images, flashing signs, array of colors and excessive number of links to documents from varied sources, failed in this regard. Further, it suggests that it is an objective forum for discussion yet its biases and objections against Dihydrogen Monoxide are clearly expressed in almost all the articles displayed on its website.
A discrete sign at the bottom of the page cautions “Note: content veracity not implied” which suggests to me that nothing on the website has been verified. Considering all these factors, it therefore is hard to take the information on this website seriously.
I do not think the creators of this site should be banned. The sites have a right to present or express their opinions on issues of concern. These information’s are the opinions of the website creators on this issue. When information’s are presented, it is up to the readers to decide what to do with it. The DHMO. Org website, the link to Hydrogen Monoxide Research Division (DHMO), has a lot of information as well as claims. While, there are no definite bodies of researches or references accredited to these information from recognized government authorities, yet, the website’s opinion cannot be totally disregard. In order to present a rational evidence, the website could have use research evidences from approved institution such as Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) or the Cancer Society of American’s could have been used to substantiate the of DHMO research and claims. According to the website, because their goal is “to provide an unbiased data clearinghouse and a forum for public discussion” almost all the information presented are from private individuals, organizations and schools researches, that has not been substantiated by established evidences. For example, presenting the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and school violence, the website did not provide a single evidence, in support of this claim. Further, the creators of the DHMO website believes that the Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide, a group that opposes banning DHMO and the press is deliberately ignoring the issues of DHMO because this group thinks the issues of DHMO has been exaggerate or because it is not a politically charged issue.
However, in order to appear believable and taken seriously, the website could look for ways of presenting their arguments in logical formats. For the public are to understand, the seriousness associated with the DHNO problem the issue should be presented rationally. In addition, they could back up their claims of “fact” with evidences from expert authorities, such as the CDC.
Do you agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned? Why or why not? Do the arguments presented by the site conform to the highest standards of rationality? What could be done to improve the rationality of the arguments?
DHMO should definitely NOT be banned. If anything, the quality of DHMO that is available to the general public should be improved. My high school chemistry teacher left enough of an impression on me that would know the common name of DHMO (H2O). I also question any website that looks like it was made before Y2K and hasn’t been updated since. Presentation is a major part in any message, especially in the modern age. While some facts are true, for example “The use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) by farmers in the U.S. and internationally is prevalent. ” The supporting evidence to each statement is at best circuitous. There is no clear explanation of why DHMO (H2O) is a threat to the nation and all its citizens. Another part of the website claims that DHMO (H2O) has contaminated sewage. I think its safe to say, sewage water is already contaminated without additional elements.
The only thing more lacking that the website, are the resumes of so called experts. Perhaps if one of those experts could show credentials, then I could be more apted to listen.
I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. This website talks about claims but does not back anything up with support and research. They need to have scientific peer reviewed evidence showing the viewers that what they claim is true. The website does provide links to government sites on the right side and does attempt to answer questions on the left side of the page. However these links are just there and there is no doesn’t provide any context or use these links as a means of citation. I think that this website is poorly developed. I had to Google things myself to see if they were actually correct and to see what DHMO really is. The websites content appears to be very opinionated. In the section where the current uses of DHMO are listed, they appear to be more or less the same in regards to saying that the army uses DHMO in weapons and other chemicals.
The argument can be more rational if they were to provide scientific evidence to back up their facts with actual studies that anyone can have access to. The websites look does not help its creditability. My firs thought was that the information written on it was not up to date. One of the most puzzling pieces of information was if DHMO can help marriages, which I thought was silly and discredits any possible evidence and facts that the website may have. Overall, I would take everything this web websites states with a grain of salt.
I do not agree that DHMO should be banned. Before realizing the DHMO is actually H2O aka water( on the bottom of the page theres a note that reads ” content veracity not implied”), I found that I could not get a clear understanding of what DHMO actually was. If DHMO actually weren’t water I still wouldn’t be convinced that it was harmful enough to be banned. Aside from the website’s shoddy and “unofficial”look , upon clicking the “Faq” page the description of DHMO was listed with a bunch of harms that weren’t at all clear. For example DHMO is said to “denature proteins”. Now Im not sure of what this means but it sounds like it could be bad , or maybe its not. The point is a site providing an argument should leave no room for interpretation and terms like this should be defined. The site is laden with terms that don’t have definitions and that I’m sure the average person won’t understand. It makes it seem as though something is being hidden (obviously the fact that its not actually a harmful substance in itself) from readers. I just found the site to be confusing although it does play into fear. The section “Facts about DHMO” and its uses can play into fear if you take the information at face value. It also plays into peoples biases by listing people who use the “substance”like members of the church of Scientology, and its use in WWII prison camps . It uses people assumption that if “bad” people use it , it must be bad in itself. At the same time reading the section made me more confused on why people would want to use something for themselves that was so harmful, even if it is a Hate group like the KKK.
I love this website! My high school chemistry teacher showed this to our class, leading many of us to plunge into that familiar panic triggered by evening news broadcasts. Our teacher alleviated those fears upon informing us of what “Dihydrogen Monoxide” really is and the admirable intent of the website’s creator, Dr. Tom Way. That is, scientific misinformation is rampant and has lasting effects on public perception of ostensibly harmful substances. Moreover, such falsity may undermine our ability to think critically in an intellectual milieu sculpted by such pervasive institutions as the media (or, as Way puts it, the “information-illiterate “journalists””).
To clarify, DHMO is the molecular name for water, y’all.
As such, in the spirit of abiding by the prompt, I would advocate DHMO remain unbanned. The research division utilizes many of the almost-comical tropes of media outlets in framing substances as detrimental to human health. Allusions to validated sources are rare and when they do occur, citations refer to whole organizations rather than specific studies or evidence-based research. Therefore, their claims were basically impossible to substantiate. Likewise, the language used is deliberately vague, leaving readers to potentially interpret claims that validate the irrational fears so prevalent in the realm of public health.
Mitigating these issues would be as simple as providing readers with sources the research division’s claims and utilizing more specific language to clarify specific details about DHMO’s use and possible “dangers.” Ultimately, as is demonstrated by the posts above, Dr. Tom Way achieved his goal of prompting individuals to recognize and put to use their critical thinking capacities. Who knew bad research could be so good?
Let’s pretend DHMO is actually a harmful substance and it is not the fancy way of saying water. In that case I would be very confused and the provided information might have scared me. Even if I didn’t agree with the fact that DHMO was dangerous, I might have doubted it safeness also.
The website itself does not inseminate trust in me. It is poorly constructed and it looks like nobody has been updating if for ages. There are a lot of statements made that talk about DHMO being harmful and dangerous. Meanwhile, there is not a single solid argument or evidence that proves the danger of DHMO. For example, one of it resources said that there was a correlation between DHMO and school violence but failed to provide supporting evidence. Also when mentioned about conducted surveys where the percentages (86% and 90%) were similar in relations of approving bans on DHMO the author failed to specify detail of the surveys.
The author should have provided more more evidence and research such as amount of people who suffered from the DHMO.Specific examples of cases where DHMO cause major harms and so on.
First of all, the rationale put forward by the creators of website on the banning of DHMO looked compelling on first read−Dihydrogen Monoxide posed dangers to human life−but on careful examination of the facts, it made no sense. Secondly, they failed to describe DHMO in layman terms. They provided some details of the substance but in scientific terms. Thirdly, they cited a supposedly renowned award-winning researcher−Nathan Zohner− whom I found out at the time was a 14-year-old junior high school student. Nathan had put together a science project that warned on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide in tap waters.
The creators of the website should have provided more details on DHMO. Some of their arguments made sense but others did not. On the usage of DHMO by groups such as the KKK, NAACP and members of congress under investigation, it made no sense to me. To what end would they use the substance?
The website DHMO.org looks like Hoax. There is much information contradicting each other. First – there can be Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities, but Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. Inhalation kills but eating it, drinking it does not. It is used by kids who play Beyblades, then in the daycares purportedly for sanitary purposes. There is no real research regarding to DHMO, no links to any valid research. This website must be for fun as the DHMO is water and we all know what water does or do not do to our bodies.