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?
31 thoughts on “DHMO.org”
Comments are closed.
I don’t believe the website should be banned because the creator Tom Way has his right, the “freedom of speech,” which is why he created this website. Even though, the website has some compelling arguments, I don’t agreed with all of the academic integrity because I did some research on the given information of the website, such as the “Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide.” This researcher was actually a 14 year old high school student who won first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for his analysis of the results for his survey about the DHMO with sample size 50 classmates at his school. Furthermore, as I was looking around the website, I found no citations, academic references, nor newspaper articles dealing about DHMO.
In my opinion, if he wants to make his argument more persuasive and have more public awareness, he should add actual ‘professional’ researchers to his website and their background information as well. Also, if he could add in some newspapers or journal articles about the dangers or cases of the DHMO affecting citizens that the public should be aware of. I think these things would definitely improve on rationality of his arguments.
Yes, I agree with the creators of the DHMO.org website, as they are petitioning for the use of DHMO to be banned. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a toxic and carcinogenic substance that contributes to the development of serious diseases and illnesses, , such as cancer, in the human body. The use of products and ingestion of food that contains Dihydrogen Monoxide is a threat to people, especially those who are unaware and not informed about the danger of this chemical compound. If DHMO is being used within fast food restaurants, there should be some kind notice to consumers of that it is an additive to the food. There is nutritional information on products within grocery stores and warehouses, therefore anything with DHMO within it as an ingredient or additive, should be put on notice to the public.
The arguments that are presented by the DHMO website conforms to high standards of rationality. They provide information and facts about the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide and how it affects consumers in various ways, including our properties and environment. The arguments that the creators of the website have presented are unbiased and based upon facts presented. There are different point of views presented on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide and how it can help and hurt in certain circumstances. I believe there can be more statistical data and detailed information on what exact products and processes that contain DHMO. There needs to be more clarity in how DHMO being used correlates with members of Congress under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate Instant Messaging behavior. Another example I believe they can improve their rationality is explain further in there mentioning of how regular ingestion of DHMO can improve marriage related activities when it is proposed to be a harmful substance.
After reviewing the contents of DHMO.org I decided to do some additional research. Dihydrogen monoxide is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain found in every lake, ocean, and river. Dihydrogen monoxide can cause severe burns as well as accelerate corrosion of many metals. As an oncology nurse I found it interesting that dihydrogen monoxide has been found in resected tumors of cancer patients. Additionally, dihydrogen monoxide is found in many of the foods we eat, used as a solvent in most pesticides that cannot be removed with simple washing. Inhalation of this chemical can cause almost certain death if medical treatment isn’t sought immediately.
I agree with Grace that DHMO.org’s arguments are not backed up by research. I don’t believe a website should be basing their research on a 14year old boys science project. Nathan Zohner, the 14-year-old student made the news when his science project started circling the Internet, but how credible is his information? Tom Way states “it is also clear that the truth may forever be obscured, so for now the reader is left to reach his or her own conclusions regarding the possible conspiracy at the EPA to cover-up the DHMO issue”. Tom has no evidence to back up his conspiracy theory. He has multiple supposedly offensive quotes from the EPA but zero citation anywhere on his website. Although I believe that individuals have the right of “freedom of speech” I believe this website goes too far. Without evidence based research and expert opinions the website isn’t credible and I believe it should be banned.
Reading the other comments here, I can’t particularly tell how “meta” everyone else is being, or how satirical the tone is. DHMO is water. Dihydrogen monoxide, H.2.0. So, no, it should not be banned, as it is the fundamental basis to all life on earth and we as a species can’t live without it.
As for the website adhering to the highest standards of rationality, I think it is safe to say that it does not. Although all of the arguments he mentions may technically be true (part of acid rain, in Hitler’s death camps, in pesticides, etc.), the entire argument falls apart when looked into a bit deeper. All of his statements are not false – however, the way they are presented and his goals in presenting them in such a way are disingenuous. He attempts to treat water as something deadly, toxic, and inhumane. In reality, it is simply the presentation of the facts in such a manner that allows the reader to come to such a conclusion.
What could be done to improve the rationality of his arguments is say that DHMO is water. If he admitted to that, the reader would be able to more easily grab the fact that his website is satire, and that his actual argument is not to fall for a position solely based on presentation of what one individual deems is fact.
I did have my suspicions that DHMO is just water as that is in fact the chemical name of water, two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, di=two from latin and mono=one from latin thus H2O= di hydrogen mono oxide or otherwise known as water.
However, the creators of this website did a wonderful job making something so vital to human nature as water seem so dangerous by simply not giving the right definition of what DHMO is from the start. When one looks carefully, it is clear that there are a lot of ‘claimed’ facts but there is no evidence provided whatsoever. The website is beautifully organized but not scientifically backed and from my understanding it is a hoax. I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO or water should be banned as it is vital to life preservation.
What there could be done with the rationality of the website creators would be : if they are not joking then inform them and thus provide them with scientific data and research so they can better understand what they are talking about and if they are joking, tell them not to as this is not a joke. There is enough misguided and misleading information out there and there is no need for more, especially on something as important as health, especially these days when the world is very concerned about health issues and living a healthy life .
At first I bought into the DHMO crisis. The site claims that thousands of people are dying each year inhaling DHMO. Sounds like a crisis to me. But after digging around the website you can see that something is off with the claims. I clicked on the special reports page and was shown alerts and advisories linked to DHMO and the latest reports were from the year 2000. Thought that was a little weird, since that was 15 years ago. If it was such a crisis, wouldn’t they have more recent information. Then I clicked on the National Consumer Coalition against DHMO and was re-routed to circus.com. That was sorta of funny i guess. But it gave me a feeling that this whole site was a joke. Then I read some of the comments above and googled DHMO and it does seem to be a hoax. So i don’t think that DHMO should be banned, because its just another name for water. I don’t think the arguments were rational, because they just don’t make any sense or have any science behind them. Not sure anything can be done to make the arguments more rational, since you really can’t ban the use of water.
When I first checked out this website, I was convinced that DHMO is a terrible substance that causes many deaths and diseases. However, something about the website seemed sort of strange to me. I didn’t see any listed sources which was a red flag to me. When I saw that this website didn’t reference any sources, I began to question the accuracy of the information on DHMO.org.
At that point, I was actually really curious as to whether DHMO was as dangerous as I thought it was. I started doing some further research by google searching “chemical facts on DHMO” and I was having difficult time obtaining information on it. There were a bunch of websites that showed up but they were all linked to this DHMO.org website. I realized that something was strange with this DHMO.org website.
I was shocked after I did further research and learned that another chemical name for water is dihydrogen monoxide which can be abbreviated as DHMO. At that point I realized that the dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is an internet hoax. This hoax involves calling water by an unfamiliar chemical name (DHMO) and publicizing some of the bad effects that water can have in a very alarming manner. For example: water accelerates corrosion and can cause severe burns. The goal of this hoax is to demonstrate scientific illiteracy amongst the general public, as well as sensationalist media reports.
This taught me a very big lesson to question what I read, especially information on the internet. We live in a culture of believing anything that we see in print. Most students are quick to citing almost anything without really knowing if it a legitimate source of information. I know that I am guilty of this because I was so close to creating an opinion on DHMO based on this DHMO.org website.
My answer to this question is obvious. I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. If DHMO would be banned, none of us would be here today!
As already pointed out by other commenters DHMO is water and obviously should not be banned.
If I were to ignore the fact that it’s water, I still would not support the site’s stance on a ban of DHMO.
The issue is that a lot of the claims are very vague and broad. Simply saying that it can cause “death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities,” may be effective in causing fear amongst the laymen but by adding that it is also often associated with killer cyclones and hurricane just makes you want to question the claims further.
Additionally, the research included on the site are just surveys of non-experts, particularly high school students. It’s hard to take the website credibly when it lacks any sufficient scientific information to back up its claims.
I expect including lines like “used by aspiring young adult fiction writers” and “by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok” were intentional and probably served a different purpose for the author.
But if they were to legitimately try to convince people to support a ban they should keep the claims as narrow as possible (for example: household use only, food only, etc…). This way people may be more inclined to believe the claims and support the ban. I would also suggest that they include actual scientific research but since DHMO is water, I expect that would be impossible.
Another note, the website’s presentation and use of comic sans on a few pages caused a quick dismissal of the claims. It’s hard to take anything seriously when the website appears to have been created in the late 90s.
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) appears to be both helpful and dangerous, a claim the website continuously states, without presenting any scientific evidence to support either of its claims. While the site mentions that you can overdose from DHMO, and lists symptoms to watch out for, it simultaneously claims that the provided symptoms “in no way should be construed as medical advice of any sort.” Why would Tom Way, the author, not provide true medical data? Statistics on the number of people who suffer from these symptoms would help bring credibility to the argument. The website itself even states that it is not harmful in small doses, “in many instances, low-levels of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable.” Meanwhile, a few paragraphs earlier on the same page, the site states “DMHO… can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.” The website is not conforming to standards of rationality since it cannot maintain a line of defense on DHMO being either harmful or benign.
Beyond being potentially unavoidable and deadly, the website claims, “the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out.” But the website does not proceed to provide any research or sources that support or dispute this fact. What is the correlation between increases in population and the increased dangers of DHMO? Searches on the links to the recognized leaders in medicine and the environment provided on the website led to none, or inconclusive, results. The DHMO site cannot be considered anything but alarmist without concrete peer-reviewed studies (not reports from High Schools, which are really just glorified polls) proving definitively the potential harm to humans and the environment.
The alerts and advisories are also severely out of date. They all date back to 2000, making a reader believe there have been no significant alerts or advisories in the past 15 years. If there have been no ill effects in the last 15 years, is it really still a problem? There have been great advances in science and technology since 2000. Perhaps DMHO is no longer as harmful as it was once believed to be. Another major sign of a lack of credibility is that the “last updated” timestamp on the bottom of the home page updates to the current date. It is therefore impossible to tell when the information on the website was last updated.
A lack of thoroughly supported research deprives the author of any credible evidence on the ban of DHMO. He seems to be stating his opinion on the facts, rather than supporting his conclusions about the dangers of DHMO with real scientific research. Tom Way uses a lot of persuasive buzzwords and phrases to make a person think there is a greater danger than presented. “the responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family lies with you.” Just glancing at the website can make you think there is a real danger, as DHMO is apparent in our everyday lives, but a deeper analysis shows there is no support for this claim. Therefore, DHMO should not be banned based on the information presented on the DHMO.org website.
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.
When I looked at the DHMO.org website, my first impression was that the layout was cheap and unprofessional. At first glance I was skeptical. Then as I read the claims I was reminded of some radicals I knew when I lived in the South that would accept anything as gospel and change their life and routine based on the latest craze. Looking deeper I found the “Special Reports” were from 2000 and a South Park based book advertised on the bottom right of the screen. I was highly skeptical and felt this was a website of a crazy person. So then I decided to check out my classmates’ posts to see if others agreed with my impression. It wasn’t until I reached Carmelo’s post that I realized my error. This exercise shows how easy it is to accept “evidence” that could create mass hysteria. It is important to look at evidence to see if it holds water. Even computer searches reveal false “proof”. When looking at opposing arguments it’s important to research and ensure the opposing side’s argument is based on fact. So I looked Dihydrogen Monoxide. Yes, I agree with Carmelo. Thank you.
What could be done to improve the rationality of the arguments? I can’t think of anything the author of the website could do to improve the rationality of the arguments. The purpose is to show how easy it is to persuade the public there is a health crisis or national emergency.
I suppose I had an advantage since I had a similar assignment in high school on a Dihydrogen Monoxide “hoax,” but a simple Google search will also show that this supposedly toxic compound is in fact water. So no, it should absolutely not be banned since we’d all die without it. Not to mention, how the heck would you ban water?
This is a perfect example of why we all need to double, if not triple check the things we read online. Never take something at face value. According to Snopes and an article by Columbia University, the 14-year-old’s science project in question wasn’t actually about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It was instead a project titled “How Gullible Are We?”
Considering all this, the arguments on the website obviously do not conform to the highest standards of rationality – the whole argument is irrational. If the author of this hoax argument wanted to improve the rationality of it then he would 1) clarify that the chemical compound name is the well-known word water and 2) back up his arguments with legitimate research which can’t be found anywhere on the site.
When I first started reading this website, I thought that it was talking about some pesticide. However after looking into the several links that the website had I realized it was never clearly stated what the substance was. It only told us what it was used for and with and how dangerous it could be. So no I don’t believe that water should be banned.
Reading this article takes me back to the argument for experts. I believe that a chemist or life science expert would have been able to tell right away that this website was a fraud. Experts bring knowledge on specific topics that would save policy makers a lot of time if they were able to objectively lead the policy makers away from such convincing arguments.
I don’t believe the creators of this website should be banned. They have the right to believe as they will. I believe these are very convincing arguments. I believe the arguments on the website are rational. They use a lot of if/then logic and create facts to back arguments up. I don’t believe that any of these facts were backed by cited research however they are very compelling.
Due to my Pre-health background I was quite amused by the DHMO website. Many individuals may not realize at first glance that Dihydrogen Monoxide is in fact H2O (water). Given the fact that over 60% of our bodies are made up of water, and our brains are on average made up of 85% of water…I do not agree with the creators that DHMO should be banned. Water is a vital source necessary for our survival. However, I do believe that the creators of this website had an alternative motive to creating this page. I believe they wanted to highlight how easy it is to influence others, especially when it comes to a topic that one may not be educated on. This brings us back to the importance of active and informed citizens. If an individual did not investigate the issue at hand, then they may have truly believed that DHMO was detrimental to their health and supported this cause.
Additionally, the arguments made on this website have no credible facts or statistical support. Most of the research and evidence portrayed are opinion and survey based. These surveys are then over generalized to represent the entire “population;” however, one is not informed of the sample size, or the distribution of variation in the sample size. The website also indicates that 90% of participants in the McClusky/Kulick study were willing to sign a petition to ban DHMO; however, what about individuals who were not willing to take part in the study? It is irrational to make generalization of this nature without making reference to the nature of the subject pool and its participants. The website then goes on to state that couples in marriages had said that DHMO improved their marriages, while couples not using DHMO said their marriages had been negatively impacted. First off, it is impossible to survive without drinking water. Second off, these were not controlled studies in which the only variable being subjugated was DHMO; therefore, a generalization of this nature is unlawful and unscientific. If one takes the time to educate themselves on the matter they will realize how absurd the claims in this website are; however, if one takes this information as fact and does not take a step further to investigate they may in fact be misinformed.
Hahaha, this was a good exercise in critical thinking. Obviously water should not be banned.
With the rapid expansion of additives to the products we use and food we eat, many consumers are rightly concerned about what they are putting into their bodies and do not trust governmental agencies to report on potentially harmful compounds. People are doing their own research, which can lead them to false conclusions if they are not careful (see: vaccination debate). This is a great example of how these rhetorical tools can be used to incite fear and panic.
Some tactics I see used to make these arguments:
– Use of unfamiliar scientific language, studies conducted by elementary school students, and phrases like “award-winning scientist” to describe an elementary school science fair winner to increase credibility of the author/site
– Accusations of a conspiracy to keep the site quiet to make the reader suspicious of government interference and side with the author/site
– Citations of dangers that are simply misuse of water (e.g. drowning, ruining electrical equipment) to make reader believe water is dangerous
– Once the reader believes water is dangerous, emphasizing how common water is (it’s in practically everything!) to increase urgency/fear
Of course no where do we see data sets, peer-reviewed journals, scientific methodologies, or other marks of methodical scientific research. To an informed reader, these are major red flags.
No, I don’t agree that that DHMO should be banned for obvious reasons that it is a naturally producing compound of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I think the creators of this website should be banned, however. (Joke)
Despite whatever fears this website has instilled, it’s a great lesson on the effects of word use and naiveté. As a burn ICU nurse, I often see smoke inhalation injuries/carbon monoxide poisoning. Initially, when reading about Dihydrogen Monoxide, I mentally related the two compounds based on my experience of the word, monoxide. Though of course when referencing back to chemistry class, you break down the molecular name of Dihydrogen Monoxide and get two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. But the normal, average Joe isn’t a chemistry whiz. And even a chemistry whiz would just call it water. This shows that with little effort, word play, and protection from freedom of speech can make even the purest of molecules seem harmful.
Does this site conform to the highest standards of rationality? Well, I don’t know all the “standards of rationality”, but all of his statements were based on factual statements; that water is found in all of those harmful substances, and water can be potentially harmful. But the websites arguments were ambiguous and unclear as to how Dihydrogen monoxide was harmful. Also, the website never defined the true nature of dihydrogen monoxide being water. Also, this reinforces the fact that that correlation does not mean causation.
If the author genuinely advocates for the impossible ban of water, he needs to strengthen the arguments through rigorous and sound research that “dihydrogen monoxide” is the main causative factor to the dangers that are argued on this website.
I hypothesize that the author can’t prove this. ☺
No I do not agree with the creators of DHMO since it is water, just like everyone else points out. Water is necessary for all living things to survive. Prior to reading the website I asked my daughter what DHMO, since she is taking chemistry now and she said water. Then we read the website and chuckled. It was interesting to see how the creator listed many facts that were true about water and yet it seems so dangerous and scary.
Although I do not want to say the creator is rational, I guess I have to because the facts listed were true. Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. The creator used scientific name for water, which many might not know and other negative facts/description such as used in cults rituals, in pesticides, and contributes to soil erosion to create a negative picture of this chemical that is so important for us to survive.
While the website certainly prompted me to do additional research on DHMO, i would not have voted to ban it based alone on the arguments the website presented.
First of all, there are little to no citations on the website. Sometimes a researcher is named and even a research publication date, but there are no official citations. To me, this indicates not only a lack of professionalism, but leads me to question whether the claims are actually factual. And without proven facts, their arguments certainly don’t conform to the highest standards of rationality.
Most of the arguments presented have no reference to a researcher and are very tenuous. Here are two examples:
– On the Cancer section, they admit that a causal link between cancer and DHMO has not yet established
-On the Environment Section, the following statement almost completely negates any legitimacy in their argument: “while most are unavoidable given current technology, there can be little doubt that the presence of DHMO in each significantly increases the negative impact to the environment.”
Finally, even though the website promotes itself as “an unbiased data clearinghouse and a forum for public discussion,” the emotional language used by the website creators quickly reveals their biased opinions. Many examples of this language can be found in the FAQ section. The first sentence of the second section is “Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! ” This obviously negates the validity of the websites’ claim to be unbiased. Later on in that section, when discussing DHMO’s supposed link to school violence, the website refers to “A recent stunning revelation…” This is obviously not a factual retelling of a discovery.
In order for this website to provide a more rational argument it would be need to provide proof of all its claims and also refrain from using emotional language. This would greatly increase its validity and persuasive ability.
And of course, the website needs a complete aesthetic overhaul, but that’s for a different course!
As I was going through the website I kept asking myself is there something that am missing here? Then I re-read the title of the website and my degree in the sciences came in handy. They were talking about water the whole time.
What I found most interesting was the way that they made it seem like a completely different topic. They did this by elongating the name of water and more or less confusing the reader. If I had no science background I would have continued to think that this was a terrible thing that we were being exposed to. The content of the website plays into a concerned citizen outlook by linking DHMO with the environment, our children and our food supply.
But even as I read through the website, at that point not realizing my mistake, I kept thinking “ but they still don’t have hard evidence about our exposures to this compound and they don’t have actual quotes from scientists, etc.”
If I hadn’t figured out that they were taking about water the whole time, I still would have not agreed on that DHMO should be banned. There wasn’t enough evidence for me to agree on the arguments being made, and I don’t think that the arguments were rational. At one point they link DHMO with school violence without any supporting evidence and they also talk about it being used by athletes without anyone being mentioned. If evidence was actually provided I think that people would actually believed the statements that were made.
Given the existing information on the website, I don’t agree that DHMO should be banned. First and foremost, A good rationality should exclude any personal emotions, instincts, subjective bias.However, the reports are untenable due to its ambiguous causative links between DHMO and various incidents such as cancer and environmental impact.Also,this website involves seditious languages which seem to mislead people on decision-making.To get the optimal rational results, objective facts should be relied on, rather than personal bias.When a lie has been told a thousand times,it can become the truth.Therefore,this website should provide sufficient evidence to prove that DHMO is the main factor to cause those problems.
Second,psychologically,humans have the competence to be rational but their performance is limited by various factors. The research reports provided are unreliable and unpersuasive. On the one hand,they were contributed by the public, rather than systematic,rigorous research professionals.On the other hand, it’s ridiculous to prove a scientific event by public survey.For example, if most public considered global warming didn’t exist,since it didn’t affect their daily life, then could we say that
This website lacks credible evidence to convince people that DHMO should be banned. Although it’s unavoidable that limited human knowledge and technology may affect people to get optimal rationality. At least, speculation and ambiguity shouldn’t be the foundation for rationality, just as this website does.
Having a pre-health background I know that Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is water. So on that note H2O should definitely not be banned. It is essential for life and no one would be alive without it. I thought it was very interesting to see how by referring to it as DHMO many people who weren’t properly informed were quick to agree with the negative claim on the site. The research lacks citations and credibility, therefore it does not conform to the highest standards of rationality.
To improve the rationality of his argument he should add some credible information to back up his claims. He should provide citations. He should also clearly inform readers that DHMO is water. Im sure by doing so people will realize his use of satire. On the site it says “The success of this site depends on you, the citizen concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide. We welcome your comments and suggestions.” He is clearly trying to point out the lack of knowledge people have on the subject and it’s interesting to see how easy it is to manipulate others when they are not informed.
I believe the creators of the DHMO.org website have a right to express their views given free speech. That being said, I happen to think that they raise some interesting points. Any substance that contributes to the development of serious diseases and illnesses by consuming various foods should be banned. DHMO is especially prevalent in fast-food restaurants and patrons should be warned of its addictiveness and affects.
As some of my colleagues mentioned, the sources and data the creators of this site use are questionable or non-existent. One classmate that DHMO is actually water and for that to be banned makes the site a joke. Given my lack of background in chemistry, I wasn’t aware of this and the site easily fooled me into believing that they have a valid claim. I think that regardless of the cause, the site’s creators would be taken more seriously by finding more reliable sources to back-up their views and source them appropriately. One can promote any cause or initiative they desire if if it seems off the wall. You just need to find sources to support what you are promoting.
I read the introduction to the blog several times and the whole time I was think this cannot be real so I did some further research outside of the website. I do not agree the website should be shut down because it is part of his constitutional right to spread whatever information he wants, no matter how ridiculous it might be. The whole time I was reading the website I was wondering how it anyone could possibly believe any information presented on the website.
At first I was very interested in what the substance DHMO could be since I have never heard of it and it was difficult to believe the information presented on the website. The information was coupled with no evidence and nothing about the statements were compelling.. DHMO definitely should not be banned because the writers of the website do not present relevant information to convince that DHMO needs to be banned; actually as some of my classmates pointed out, there is plenty of research that points to the fact that the end of mankind would be imminent without DHMO. Just as its the writer’s right to publish the website, its our right to do our own research and become informed citizens so we are not swayed by every crook with an internet website.
I can’t agree with the statement that website should be banned because that would conflict with one’s freedom of speech. People should have access to all the information that they want to access. I think the website looks amature and sloppy and content supporting any rational claim is almost non-existent; it’s good to have the site up there because not too many people will take it seriously. I do think that certain content on the website should be censored as there are places where it deliberately scares the public and that is not fair. Calling the gas odorless, colorless, and deadly is frightening and whereas a simple detector machine can be installed to protect us from the gas, which is not stated on the website. The website just manipulates the public by creating anxiety for the people who are reading it. Yet, the site is so poorly done that anyone who thinks rationally will not take it seriously.
I reviewed the DHMO website and went to the FAQ section. I was initially startled and had a pit in my stomach when I read that DHMO was used in the production of beyblades, a toy my son plays with. I went back to look at the name of the chemical and realized it was 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen which is the chemical make up of water. Thanks to my many science classes including chemistry and not to mention science is my best subject in Trivia Crack.
What the website seemed to want to do was gain a following by causing fear, that it did initially for me when it appealed to my concern for the safety of my child. However, the website did not show any evidence based research findings. I think what I was trying to say in a previous class when we discussed experts is just because someone has a title of scientist or someone calls themselves an expert it doesn’t make them an expert. Also I believe sometimes a scientist or expert has so much invested in their research that it is really hard for them to evaluate the evidence with an unbiased view.
This website should not be banned based on the first amendment of freedom of speech. The argument doesn’t conform to a rational argument as I previously stated it simple appeals to peoples fears. If someone wants to have a strong argument they need to include evidence based research in their argument.
Like many of my fellow classmates, I was at first taken in by the website’s claims. But the poor presentation of the website makes it easy to dismiss. Kudos to Michael for pointing out that comic sans is never the way to communicate anything.
I clicked on many of the links in the research and was dismayed by the sources. Science projects by teenagers can (in some rare instances) be transcendent, but that does not seem to be the case in this instance. Being a novice at chemistry, I laughed when I read that one of the comments said that the compound was water.
In the end, I do not believe that this website should be banned. The first amendment provides protection for many different types of speech. I’m somewhat conflicted because part of me thinks that this is the classic case of ‘yelling fire in a theater’ but I guess I compare it more to those sleazy ads that say ‘residents of New York are shocked by this ultra secret cheap way to buy housing,’ its clickbait. If we start policing everything that everyone says on the internet, where would we be?
The website at the first glance leaves an impression of a slightly unprofessional, unscientific feel to ti. This immediately made me suspicious of the content of the website.
Once i started browsing through the website I found no links to research the author based his assumptions on. However, being unfamiliar with DHMO, I looked around online and was very amused to found out it was water. I went back and scrolled through claims on the website and found them very entertaining.
The founders of this website should not be banned as they are exercising their right of free speech. With grass root movements such as the DHMO website, it can snowball into a larger movement and get the public to demand safer products and environment. The United States do not have strict chemical regulations such as the E.U., mostly due to the fact that the United States is in the business of manufacturing chemicals. If DHMO is a legitimate concern, this can put pressure on our government to protect our nation and create stricter legislation on chemical exposure.
The website does not convey the highest standard of rationality. Although witty, it lacks evidence. The site itself looks basic/old fashioned and need for an upgrade. That in itself can scream discreditable and unprofessional. A breakdown of what DHMO does to the body anatomically was not presented. The effects of high levels vs low levels DHMO, the average DHMO exposure a person is subjected to and what the potential affects, no watchdog/NGO studies were sited, no reputable research study was sited etc. all need to be presented to legitimize their claims.
It is potentially obvious that there are some pros and cons in regards to DHMO. What is even more obvious is that DHMO is in everything and must be regulated by our delegates. Unfortunately due to lobbyist and special interest groups our House of Representatives seem to let this matter fall to the waste side assisting in the exacerbation of global warming. The environment in which we live in is one of the most ignored topics of our generation. Money seems to trump all living things including Mother Earth. I predict a end to our future if we do not keep close supervision of this planet. The greed for money by corporations seems to be the navigating force behind every infrastructure of our daily lives. I do appreciate this website for bringing awareness to this very important matter; however I don’t believe that this is enough. If we as members of this universe are witnessing the slow killing of our planet we should be taking this matter into the street and making a lot of noise. Our planet is dying and we are going with it. This issue should take precedence over every other foreign and domestic affair.
After visiting the online website, I don’t think that (DHMO) should be banned. All the evidences presented on the website are actually not credible. Most of the reports were taken from high schools research. The hoax gained renewed popularity in the late 1990s when a 14-year-old student collected anti-DHMO petitions for a science project about gullibility. I feel that the creator of the website was interested only to show the negative side of (DHMO). He made DHMO sounds like a huge issue that has been neglegted. He never showed the other helpful side of DHMO.
I believe this website is simply an example to mislead people especially to form positions or opinions about things they have not researched on their own.
The South Park reference in the right sidebar tipped me off. H2O is water. Very entertaining and very thorough — impressive presentation of research. This site is a great example of facts manipulated to persuade. The writers present a well crafted argument supporting the ban of water. It is instructive that skillful writing in the wrong hands is dangerous. As an audience for all public messages we need to be aware and skeptical of the sources of evidence and how they are presented for any argument. I don’t think the writers should be banned. Not only do they have a right to free speech they also provide a valuable lesson for all of us consuming (bombarded with) information and participating as citizens and voters. Public relations messages of all sorts are crafted everyday to sway our opinions and votes on the topics that effect our lives. We need to be aware of the manipulation.