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 firmly disagree that DMHO should be banned. If it were, I think everyone would die, considering DMHO is water. I hope no one in the class writes that it should it be banned, that would be very sad. The arguments presented on the sight lacked any concrete evidence, it just stated claims of possible links without any scientific backing. I honestly had no idea what DMHO was at first, so I googled it, and upon further research discovered it was water. The arguments on the site have no rationality at all, because there are no cited sources supporting the claim.
There are several ways to improve the rationality of the arguments. The most important factor is logic, the argument should have a premise that clearly follows through with a conclusion. Any evidence sited should be a reliable source, such as a scholarly journal or a reliable news outlet (PBS or BBC not FOX, CNN, or MSNBC). All evidence in the body should be related to the argument, there should also be no logical fallacies, such as character assassinations, appeals to popularity/ the past/emotions, faulty analogies, false dilemmas, or slippery slopes. If an argument meets all these criteria’s, it is rational.
I don’t agree that DMHO should be banned. The website lists a plenty of evidence, including “formal” research reports, to prove that DMHO is positively correlated with stuff that is harmful to human beings and our planet. However, correlation does not imply causation. No, or very little, evidence shows that DMHO causes these dependent variables in the research. As a result, this website fails to convince me that DMHO is harmful and should be banned.
The arguments presented by the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality. I agree that DMHO is essential to many hazardous substances, but it is not the critical element to make the substances harmful. And the website also fails to list the benefits of DMHO to us and the environment. In order to improve the rationality of the arguments, all sides of DMHO should be introduced in the arguments. We as rational people will judge whether it should be banned based on the cost benefit analysis, subject to the constraint of our scientific knowledge.
I question the validity of the claims on this website. Dihydrogen Monoxide seem the be the culprit for everything from soil corrosion to killer cyclones and finally dog fights. These claims are blame this chemical compound for almost everything that goes wrong in the environment. Dihydrogen Monoxide robbed by house last week!!!
The claims are just to wide spread with very little scientific information provided. There are some legitimate links but even on the CDC’s website there is no specific information on this particular “causative component” of what appears to be everything above and below the planet earth. What is really questionable is that the website states that DHMO causes DNA mutation but these are no allegations of birth defects in humans or animals. There is no logic to any of these claims. I also see that the KKK and NAACP have also used this compound. Bath houses in NYC and San Francisco implicate gay males in god know what?
Non Sense!!!
It doesn’t seem like DHMO.org confirms with the standards of rationality. There are no proper research done by DHMO.org. While referring the research section of the website, we can find that all the research is done in the form of surveys which are done by common people which involves even the students from various schools. Many media houses and government people have been decieved by this hoax campaign and that can be the reson why people are believeing that Dihydrogen Monoxide(water) is actually harmful. The results and findings of DHMO.org can only be believed to be apt when a proper research is done by a government agency or any known agency which works as an environmental protection agency.
DHMO.org was created for the purpose of banning the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide by Dr. Tom Way. After referring all the information and FAQs about DHMO, I disagree with the creators of this website. The main reason that I disagree with this site is that U.S government and Centre for Disease Control (CDC) have not yet classified Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or harmful substance.
The website shows that the homepage is supported by U.S. Environmental Assessment Centre but there is no physical information anywhere on the homepage or the website. It seems the source of the information is secondary sources as it has vague citations or no citations at all. So we can say that Mr.Way has written most of the information on his own. Also his attempt to provide proof of harmful effects of DHMO doesn’t seem concrete and it doesn’t has any scientific evidence. (Villegas)
This campaign is considered as a hoax by many people because on 1st April, 1983, an article regarding the harmful effects of DHMO was printed in Durand Express it was revealed in the article that the dangerous chemical was nothing but just water. Still many people still believed that DHMO is a harmful chemical. There was another such incident in which many people were deceived. In 1997, a 14 year old student made a science project regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide and made 43 people to sign his petition to ban DHMO.(Melissa, 2015). So there were many such incidents which contributed to the disbelief that many people have about Dihydrogen Monoxide which in simple terms is just water.
Hydric acid is just another name of water. So banning it would mean end of earth as water is necessary for survival. The harmful effects as stated in DHMO.org are just different effects of water when used in different form. For example, the site states that DHMO can cause severe burns. Boiling water indeed causes burns. It also states that DHMO causes rusting.Well, we can blame the rain water for that. So it would be impractical and impossible to ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) if human beigns intend to survive on earth. (Debate.org, 2008)
Bibliography
Debate.org. (2008, march 3). Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned. Retrieved september 26, 2015, from Debate.org: http://www.debate.org/debates/Dihydrogen-Monoxide-should-be-banned/1/
Melissa. (2015, June 15). THE DEADLY DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE. Retrieved september 26, 2015, from Today I found out: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/06/tricking-people-banning-water-dihydrogen-monoxide/
Villegas, D. M. Memo regarding the use of the website, http://www.dhmo.org. DMRD
No i don’t believe DiHydrogen monoxide (DMHO) should be banned. Since i don’t much about this chemical, i googled it for more information and i found out that this is just another name for water. I think that this site is based on irrational arguments because water in it purest form is not toxic as they suggest. Some of the arguments that they claims such as global warming and soil erosion are just incorrect due to the fact that water has been around longer than humans and it has not caused any of these claims instead, water has been essential to life on this planet. water is used a as mechanism for causing these claim through run ons and pollution. For how to improve this argument, i cannot think of a way to improve it because water is essential to all living things and i don’t think anyone can say how we don’t need water.
I do not agree that DiHydrogen monoxide (DHMO) should be banned, as the website DHMO.org advocates. Although the group does not explain this, Dihydrogen Monoxide is essentially water. Obviously, humans and other animals need water to survive. This makes it impossible to exclude DHMO from our lives. However, DHMO.org does an excellent job of failing to mention this fact. In fact, there is a whole Wikipedia page on this type of hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax).
At a quick glance, the arguments made by this group can seem valid. They use techniques such as scare tactics and basic causation skills to try to convince the reader of the dangers of HDMO. An example of their scare tactics is the quote ” DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.” This sounds like a pressing issue that can greatly affect public health. However, the organization fails to explain in what the substances HDMO is located. The group only explains it can be found in association with chemicals that are dangerous. DHMO.org tries to link, or create a causation argument, but fails to do so effectively.
The section that is the least convincing is entitled “What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?” The claims made in this section are exaggerated and outrageous. The two examples that stuck out to me are “by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches” and “by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco.” These scenarios seem ridiculous, and the organization fails to explain how the chemicals are used in these situations. DHMO.org does a poor job explaining these issues here.
All in all, this group does a terrible job of making an argument through causation, deduction, induction and scare tactics. Also, a website layout from the early 2000s hurts your case as well. It makes one’s arguments seem outdated, as the website layout is older.
I can say definitively that I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. However, I may be convinced by a more intellectually composed and well founded website. The arguments presented on DHMO.org are completely far reaching and possibly even crazy. For instance, under the FAQ’s section, kids who play Beyblades and the clientele of bath houses are listed as the uses for DHMO. The listed uses do not explain what purpose DHMO serves and why it is harmful. In fact, I did not find an area of the website that scientifically or intellectually explained what DHMO is and why it’s harmful to us. Looking over the site, we can also find that the links that supposedly lead to DHMO related info only take you to an organizations homepage. None of these links display relevant information related to the issue of DHMO being harmful or support for banning it. Overall the website did more to convince me that the creator has no proven knowledge about the harms of DHMO or what it truly is.
This website would be greatly improved if it followed standards of rationality. To make a rational argument, the creators should steer clear of logical fallacies that only hurt their position. The creator uses a number of scare tactics throughout the site that prove more comical than concerning; unfortunately for the creator, playing to the emotions of the audience is one of the greatest downfalls of this site. Secondly, all of the information contained on the website should come from reputable sources and be cited for accuracy. There is little proof that any of the information on the site comes from actual research into the use and harmfulness of DHMO. If the creator is able to obtain tangible research and organize the information in a way that follows the standards of rationality, he/she will have a much stronger argument than the one presented.
FIrst of all, dihydrogen monoxide could not possibly be banned since it is water (dihydrogen = 2 hydrogen, monoxide = 1 oxygen = H2O). Even if it wasn’t water though, I would not agree with the authors of the website.
Virtually no evidence is given to explain how DHMO is harmful. While they mention its presence in pretty much every negative part of human existence, this is all corollary rather than causative. The only “studies” I saw mentioned were surveys that collected peoples’ opinions rather than facts.
To improve rationality it is necessary for information sources to be referenced, statistics to be given, and actual evidence to be cited rather than simply a listing of “facts.” The funny part about this is, water is involved in everything in life, so it is not like the website is selling lies. However, they are presenting the information in a negative light and failing to mention key and important information. For an argument to be rational, it must address all sides of an issue.
I do not believe DHMO should be banned. After reading the first paragraph of the facts page explaining what DHMO is, I quickly searched DHMO because the explanation did little to actually explain the chemical; it was then that I learned that DHMO is another name for water.
One of the issues with the website is its lack of credible research. Although there is a page showing select middle school and high school science studies (which have the potential to result in legitimate findings), the information given here is limited and lacks credibility. Another issue is the massive scope that DHMO covers. To improve the rationality of the arguments, the website should narrow its focus and give more detailed explanations on all or a select number of issues, rather than broadly state a few points repeatedly.
I absolutely do not agree that DHMO (aka water) should be banned. As it is vital to all life on the planet, that would simply be a disastrous mistake. The arguments and evidence presented on the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality. The fallacy of equating correlation with causation runs rampant on the site, and there is no legitimate research and evidence backing up the claims made by the authors.
To improve upon the arguments made in the site concerning DHMO, the authors should clearly demonstrate a link between the substance and all of the harms it is supposedly causing, showing that it is the factor that causes the harm. Also, evidence used by the authors should come from legitimate organizations, not from middle and high school classes and surveys.
I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. After reviewing the comments of my peers and doing my own further research, learned that DHMO is the chemical name for water. According to Shereen Lehman, Nutrition Expert for About.com, our bodies are about sixty to seventy percent water. Our vital organs, blood, muscles, and brain are primarily water. We use water to regulate our body temperature, transport nutrients to our organs, remove waste and protect our organs (1). With that being said, we should all realize that water is vital component of our survival; therefore, regardless of its chemical name, it should not be banned.
In terms of the arguments posted on the site, it does not confirm the highest standards of rationality. It seems as though a lot of this information is Tony Way’s personal opinion or a collection of “facts” compiled from different individuals, without any formal references to support these claims. I believe that in order to be rational about the information one is providing to the public, he or she should make sure that the information he or she is proving can be proven. Speakers need evidence to support their claims.
At the same time, their audience should also take the initiative and research what is being told to them before they simply accept it as fact, just because someone in power told them it. For example, Donald Trump and his claims that vaccinations lead to Autism. Overall, I think to rationalize these arguments, we all need to play our part – speakers need to research their “facts,” just as much as audience members need to research these topics or call out speakers on their nonsense. This needs to happen before this false information goes too far! It could lead to a website, like DHMO.org, and where donations are potentially being collected to prevent a harmful chemical that is a vital part of our everyday survival!
Lehman, Shereen. “Why You Need to Drink Water.” About.com – About Health. About.com, 23 July 2015. Web. 29 Sept. 2015. .
http://nutrition.about.com/od/hydrationwater/a/waterarticle.htm
I agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned. Although i do have my doubts about the information that are given by the website. The website seems to merely talk about the all the harms and yet they have nothing to back up the claims.
According to the website, DHMO contribute to global warming, acid rain, and soil erosion but there is no real statistical evidence on how much DHMO is contributing. DHMO is present in high levels in creeks, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world. Again, no statistical evidence. The website also mentioned that DHMO possibly played a role in the formation of cancer. However, there is no real research that have been done on that so is not very convincing at all.
The argument could’ve been better if there were actual evidence with numbers or graphs. People are more likely to be convinced if there are researchers down by prestigious researchers or organizations. This website did not seem to present either.
I have to ask – how can you agree with the creators of the website when there is no statistical evidence and no real research? What about the website made you agree? Yes, the claims are significant, but if there is no evidence to back them up then how can you be sure that the claims are true?
I disagree with the creators of the website wanting DHMO being banned mainly because as others have pointed out, they are discussing water. Sadly the site is similar in many ways to posts you see on social media ranting about whatever the latest trend exists. Sites such as this usually take an extreme position and post quotes that are not founded in any sort of evidence or facts. They simply prey on peoples emotions and the fact that some people still think that if they read it online then it must be true. In order for an argument to make rational points it must have evidence that can be verified and fact checked.
I do not agree that DHMO should be banned. The arguments presented by the website definitely aren’t rational. They have a laundry list of reasons about how harmful the substance is but don’t support them with any research, sources, or examples. You can say that accidental inhalation of DHMO causes death. When asked how you know this, you could say “it’s a fact.” As we saw in 12 Angry Men, simply stating that something is a fact does not make it so. A rational argument is one with a basis. One that you can back up with real evidence and research. Without this, your argument falls short, and chances are people won’t agree with you.
Another thing I noticed is that there is no clear theme in the “evidence” the website lists. It just seems like DHMO is in everything, used by everyone, and causes every bad thing. You can’t help but wonder if there is another factor involved, and DHMO just happens to be there. They also try to use scare tactics in place of rationality by saying that DHMO was used by terrorist groups and Hitler, and causes tissue damage and severe burns. While scare tactics may initially work on people, eventually your evidence will start to be questioned.
To improve the rationality of the arguments, the website needs evidence. They can’t assume that people will accept everything they see on the site as a fact. They need to answer questions like “How does DHMO cause this?” “Do we have proof that DHMO is in our food, or is used by the KKK?” Describing or providing links to scientific studies from reputable sources would definitely help the rationality of the argument. The website provides tons of information about DHMO, but fails to prove that anything they said is true.
I understand that the developers of this site might have used a visually cruder method of presentation than we are normally accustomed to (I mean, we’re on blackboard and blogspot) but I was surprised at how quickly most of the class dismissed what was being said on this site. DHMO can cause “Death due to accidental inhalation” and “prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.” Some of the biological uses for it were unsettling (e.g. weapons manufacturing, animal research laboratories, pesticide production, etc.). Although, some of the claims on the site seemed a bit farfetched and are more likely observed due to correlation as opposed to causation. But the fact that it’s present in high quantities in cancers and tumors should be cause for some alarm. Based on the content of the website, I agree that DHMO should have some serious oversight from the EPA and FDA and some proposed legislation to regulate its use in certain industries and households.
That’s not to say that there weren’t problems with the way the material was presented. In terms of the highest standards of rationality, the site took the liberty of pointing to every negative aspect of DHMO without specifying cases or statistics. I think bringing up every issue/correlation related to DHMO was probably not serving their presentation of the facts – particularly its link to school violence and improved marriage (is it a Viagra substitute?) – highlight the major flaws of the presentation. With the issue of school violence, there wasn’t enough data supporting this notion to really include it on the site (I did a quick scouring of the intraweb and could not find any scholarly articles to corroborate this). Presenting its potentially positive effects on marriage and just labeling those a myth without any body of evidence to refute it was a weak strategy. What would be most helpful to this site in its presentation of the facts are case studies that show specific cause/effect relationships of DHMO.
It’s also important to cite sources of studies. You cannot allude to researchers in this manner: “the researcher, who reported to us under conditions of anonymity…” The anonymity of the researcher prevents us from reviewing her credentials to establish the credibility of her claims.
Wait…its water?!
I disagree that DHMO should be banned. DHMO aka water is the sole reason for human’s ability to survive. In recent news, the discovery of even more water on the planet mars was considered a monumental event because it justifies further exploration.
Clearly the arguments on this website are not rational at all. This website does a great job of showing how rhetoric and strong language can shape the perception of a topic. The article not only emphasizes the dangers of water but also links it to war crimes and hate groups. Improving an argument against water is an extremely difficult task. If this website did want to express their opinion rationally, they would need to provide evidence based research.
Even if I were to put aside the facts that DHMO is just the chemical name for water and that this website is part of a hoax meant to prove the naiveté of the general public, I still would be vehemently against agreeing with anything this site has to say. The simple response is that I do not think DHMO should be banned because it is water and we need it to survive. The even simpler response, which requires no knowledge of what DHMO even is, would still be no I do not agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned because they have provided no credible evidence to back up any of their claims. The site’s arguments do not meet even the lowest standards of rationality in my opinion. Not one reliable source or citation is given. There is no mention of any research papers published in academic journals, TV or print news publications, nor legitimate experiments conducted by verified field professionals. There IS, however, an abundance of the website creator’s opinion trying to be passed off as fact. He crafts his sentences around buzzwords such as “unbiased data clearinghouse” and “insider exposé” which sound very important and official but don’t actually carry any meaning when not supplemented with tangible evidence. The website’s author refers to the “dangers of DHMO” and “the DHMO issue” multiple times without ever explaining exactly WHAT those “dangers” and “issue” are. The author is talking a lot but not actually saying anything of value.
The rationality of the site’s arguments could be improved first and foremost simply by providing evidence to back their position. Hard data is needed to support the claims made by this website and it must come from a credible source that the website should cite. Additionally, I would have been much more inclined to overlook some of these shortcomings and possibly even considered agreeing with the site’s stance on DHMO if I hadn’t felt like I was being intentionally deceived. When I clicked on the yellow flower on the top left of the page that had “EAC – United States Environmental Assessment Center” written on it, I expected to be taken to a U.S. governmental organization’s website. Instead, it was just another extension of DHMO.org which I noticed as soon as I looked at the URL. It felt as though this page was specifically designed to look like it belonged to a totally unrelated, independent third-party organization that just so happened to agree with all of DHMO.org’s assertions. I believe it would help improve the rationality of the website’s arguments if it focused more on maintaining a certain level of integrity rather than putting its efforts into manipulating the site’s visitors.
After doing more research on DHMO and reading everyone’s comment. I am now changing my answer, that DHMO should not be banned. Especially since we are essentially discussing about water.
After reading the information provided the U.S. Environmental Assessment Center, I am not convinced that DHMO should be banned. There is much debate on the internet on whether the issue of DHMO is a hoax, questioning the credibility of those who claim it’s lethal. Hence, I think that further research would benefit readers and consumers of this product.
The arguments presented by the sight are irrational, in that they mostly appeal to the emotions of readers. The site does not provide supportive evidence for its claim. For instance, it gives examples of where DHMO is being used, but it doesn’t support the linkage between DHMO exposure and deaths. The authors need to provide a medical explanation of the effects of DHMO. They could also support their argument through reference to incidences of deaths in the U.S. due to exposure to DHMO. The authors would need to show that some other factor is not affecting rates of death or other harmful effects of the substance. Also, the authors could cite credible secondary medical literature on the matter. The site’s presentation itself is not credible; it’s full of images, bright colors that appeal to the senses, not logic.
I had recently seen a video of someone on college campuses trying to get people to ban this “chemical” but funny enough it is just the scientific name for water. Its funny that we as a community, when we hear scientific words and someone advocating against it that we immediately jump to conclusions and think the worst. A similar thing is currently going on with High Fructose Corn Syrup or people that are against Gluten.
What can be done to improve rationality is just saying what the product is instead of using the chemical name. The same way High Fructose Corn Syrup is just sugar that is produced by corn but when people hear a long name with the word “Fructose” they begin to freak out and over analysis and think that their is poison in our food.
The obvious answer is no, I do not agree with the creators of the website. The website is aimed at targeting the most extreme fears of viewers, appealing to their irrational senses, with claims about death and toxicity. Of course, these aren’t accurate statements but as soon as a viewer is exposed to these words, it’s much easier to then present vague information to that suddenly sounds more believable.
Unfortunately there are sites, and campaigns like this that exist and people do seek them out for information. For example, it has been since proven that the video “exposing” Planned Parenthood of making a profit off of fetal tissue was heavily edited. But if you search “Planned Parenthood,” one of the first sites you get is: “PlannedParenthoodExposed.com” showing the video that supposedly exposed the truth. With videos that appeal to the irrational senses, the videos automatically incite emotion without necessarily presenting fact.
I don’t believe the site should be banned/shut down. However, this only highlights why it is important to seek information rather than accept what one is told. I had to do additional readings to find out about dihydrogen monoxide. Although, after checking out the website, I chuckled when it said ” the goal of this site is to provide an unbiased data clearinghouse and a forum for public discussion.” Perhaps I may be too cynical but is there such a thing as unbiased data??
Also, it’s impossible to take the site seriously. The flashing graphics, writings, and page presentation seems amateurish especially since it’s addressing a serious problem.
Also reading the DHMO and Cancer page, the first thing that jumps out at me is this,
“The causative link between Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) and Cancer is currently not established, although a significant amount of evidence seems to suggest that DHMO at least plays a role in the formation of cancer.” Uhmm Ok?? Perhaps solid facts and proper research might help people be better informed if they want to have public discussion and have a site dedicated to this.
DHMO is clearly one of the most dangerous substances ever discovered by scientists, and doctors are only just beginning to understand the many harms caused by this invasive compound. Just this week, new research from NASA suggests DHMO may be present on Mars, which certainly raises the possibility of it being a chemical alien to the earth. Some have even wondered if extraterrestrial life forms purposely infected the earth with DHMO when they built the pyramids and the Nazca lines.
This website does a great job introducing people to the innumerable ills caused by DHMO, but it would be better if it were more forthcoming with data and studies that indicate the serious harm caused by this substance. DHMO could be at the root of humanity’s most vexing problems, I just hope we can all work together to find solutions, and stop the government agencies like the EPA, that are obscuring the truth.
Peter, I’m glad you and I are on the BAN IT bandwagon.
Peter, I’m glad you and I are on the BAN IT bandwagon. Let’s definitely set this up as a political straw man and run a campaign based around it. Genius.
Oh, let’s go ahead and ban it. It is definitely the chemical compound responsible for millions of deaths worldwide, and billions of dollars in property damage (i.e. impending hurricane Joaquin).
I think this website does a pretty good job of explaining the dangers of water. It IS deadly and pervasive – those are factually accurate statements. Were this not a conscious attempt by the website creators to demonstrate the dangers of logical fallacies, and instead about an actual dangerous chemical, we might all be on board.
This is an old trick, using dihydrogen monoxide to fool people, but it nonetheless still works well as a showcase to nearly every type of logical fallacy, as a means to demonstrate where we, the public, might be falling for them elsewhere.
This was really an interesting experience to me to explore DHMO.org as I was made a fool for a while by the website’s organization and reasoning pattern. Whoever is responsible and creator of this site, in my opinion, have idea in their mind to show how people can be deceived. DMHO is nothing but the other name of water. They twisted the chemical composition of water (H2O) and call it Dihydrogen Monoxide aka DHMO. I would be honest that if I couldn’t realize that the motto of this website is to ban water, I was almost convinced that water should be banned!!!
I like the website’s organization and how smoothly they have built strong reasoning in favor of banning water. They took advantage of the fact that many people might not realize that DHMO is the other name of water and the trend that people believe in something they don’t know. I think for reasoning, they have used both Deduction and Induction. Throughout the website, they focused on one specific topic, built premises to conclude one thing, that Water must be banned ! On the other hand, they have presented few cases like environmental impact, cancer, dairy industry, conspiracy etc to prove the point that water is very dangerous and it must be banned. This induction process is also supported by vague logic like, “Additionally, the cause of approximately 20 percent of all cancers is not known, and there is reason to suspect that DHMO may play some role in these as well.” They used the unknown 20% reason to establish a relation between water and cancer causing substance. I am impressed and I don’t think I could do better if I was to prepare a website to confuse people.
At first, I accepted into the DHMO crisis. The site suggest that thousands of people are dying each year gulping DHMO. Sounds like a disaster to me. But after digging around the website you can see that something is off with the claims. I checked on the special reports page and was shown alarms and advisories connected to DHMO and the newest 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 checked on the National Consumer Coalition against DHMO and was re-routed to circus.com. That was sorta of funny i guess. But it provided 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 it’s just another name for water. I don’t think the arguments were valid, because they just don’t make any sense or have any science behind them. Not sure anything can be done to make the debate more rational, since you really can’t ban the use of water.