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?
23 thoughts on “DHMO.org”
Comments are closed.
After reading the content of this website, I must say that I was very much inclined to believe that DHMO should be banned. I have read solid points why it should be banned such as it is a cancer -causing agent , toxic substance disease and environmental hazard. But, let me emphasize that one of the words that caught me at first when reading was the term ” unbiased data”. Thus, I kept reading in good faith hoping to find convincing ad objective/ rational reasons on why DHMO should be banned. However, while reading DHMO , it just get stuck in one’s head as DHMO as an acronym without really paying attention of what DHMO means. DHMO stands for dihydrogen monoxide and the minute that i’ve said the word out loud , I thought hold on? isn’t that H20? dihydrogen is 2 hydrogen and monoxide is one oxygen. H20 -as I’ve used often in texting friends or in chemistry class back in high school in Haiti – is water. Why would one want to ban water? I must say I am utterly confused, totally stunned.
There is no way in the world that water can cause all these issues. It is ESSENTIAL to life. How can we ban it? I went through all the links on that website, read the environmental, research etc portions of DHMO and it can be very misleading. Without knowing that DHMO is water, one can easily fall for the” evidence” and ” unbiased data” provided by this website that DHMO is dangerous. Everything looks so well put and backed up with articles and reasonings but while knowing this is water, I simply refuse to believe it. Just simply non sensical although they have presented “good arguments” or should I say it sounded very persuasive if one focuses on DHMO – the acronym- only without doing too much thinking. Understanding and admitting that this website is well put , well written using research, this is simply irrational.
As I read the facts presented on DHMO website, I was incline to believe that DMHO should be banned. From some of the examples given such as its effect on cancer, hypertension and many health issues. However when the example of its usage being associated with the high school shootings, I decided to look up DHMO and read up on it on other websites because I could not understand the relationship that the website is trying to make between the two (DMHO and the shooters). It was while researching that I came across the break down of DHMO (Dihydrogen Monoxide) to literally mean H20 – Two Hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule. The website is a total hoax, because water is been proven for ages to be essential to human life. How then can it be banned?
I think that at first glance without any research, it is easy for people to join the bandwagon and automatically assumed the DHMO is a terrible chemical that has all these negatives side effects listed on the website. With careful reading and critical thinking however, you can see that a lot of the examples listed on the site does not come with actual facts to back up the claims. For example, they mentioned that DHMO is used by athletes to improve endurance and increase strength but they never mentioned in which particular product can such thing be found. I am glad I decided to research DHMO and came across it’s actual meaning. This is the kind of gobbledygook that I believe Orwell was talking about in his Political language article. Saying a bunch of stuff that has no meaning and believing that you are actually making sense.
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.
Oh, also. I don’t think DMHO should be banned. And once people see DMHO = H2O = Water there is nothing to be said to improve the rationality of their argument.
As others have mentioned, DHMO is water. So, I obviously do not think that it should be banned. But, even if that weren’t the case, this website provides little factual evidence that is causes serious harm. It mentions studies and reports quite frequently and doesn’t back anything up with evidence. You can clearly see in the website that they use carefully crafted language and buzz words to draw the reader in. The website makes it seem like they have facts to back up their strong opinions but there aren’t any cited. Arguments like this could be improved with actual facts and studies and I wouldn’t consider this site rational because of that fact. (And because DHMO is water)
In an effort to take the site as it is and ignore the fact it’s about water, I do not agree with the creators of this website for the simple reason that it contains a lot of claims about DHMO, none of which are backed up by any evidence or source of their truthfulness.
According to the site’s FAQ, DHMO apparently is a key ingredient in everything from cancer, to dog attacks to school violence. If that were true, then it would certainly be a good idea to ban DHMO. However, right now the site just lists those dangers. For me to agree with them, I need to see the sources of those claims. Have they been described by independent research organizations, academic studies or government reports? The site only seems to contain ‘research’ done by the organization itself, which is neither independent nor credible.
Even if the site contained links to credible sources, the overall site is just too slanted toward banning DHMO. Even if all the claims were true, the site does not even try to say its independent or present the other side. Instead it comes out attacking organizations like the EPA in an effort to push its side.
For every point of view, you can find articles, research and tests that show favor to one side. As the website states, DHMO is used by terrorist groups, the KKK, Hitler’s death camps. These would all be considered bad things and would serve as a cause to ban whatever chemical or object that was being used by these groups. We could even state that every murder, rape, and kidnapping was performed by someone or a group of people who had DHMO in their bodies! This would be a major eye opener for the public to read about and eventually support the banning of DHMO, but upon knowing what DHMO is, the facts supporting the claims are irrelevant.
Of course it should not be banned. Water is an essential part of life and human survival. The website states a myriad of causes, effects, and uses of DHMO and they span a wide variety of different topics. I find this irrational because the website will mention how pro athletes use DHMO and then jump straight to mentioning how Hitler used it. To improve the rationality of the arguments, the website should have a more focused delivery of the problems that are caused by DHMO. For example, focusing strictly on the health problems linked to using DHMO would allow the website to have a common theme, less data, and allow the readers to understand what banning this substance would do to help people.
The DHMO website reveals the importance of word choice. For example, the website uses Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) instead of water when presenting their argument. As a chemical compound, DHMO is depicted as a poisonous and highly reactive substance that is hazardous to one’s health. If DHMO was replaced with the word ‘water,’ the previous sentence may not persuade a group or audience in the same manner. The website claimed that DHMO was used by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Hitler and death camps in Germany and terrorist. Yet, there is no evidence or examples presented to support these claims. The “facts” presented on the DHMO website exemplifies how information is exploited and manipulated to the user’s advantage. I am sure there are plenty of counterarguments that would weaken the points made on the website. Although the website overwhelms the reader “facts” and figures, it fails to demonstrate why DHMO should be banned.
No, I do not agree with the creators of the website regarding the ban on DHMO. The creators of DHMO.org use deliberately misleading terminology and language to confuse and manipulate their readers into believing their unreasonable and preposterous claims regarding the toxicity and danger of the DHMO compound. More dangerous than DHMO would be the inability to see through all the fluff.
At first glance, this website seems to be straightforward, ensuring the reader of its intent “to provide an unbiased data clearinghouse” regarding the controversy surrounding dihydrogen monoxide and a forum for public discussion. The information is presented in a seemingly scientific manner, with what appears to be factual evidence pertaining to the dangers of the DHMO compound. However, the information on the website quickly unravels into an entirely biased, entirely opinionated piece meant to misguide the reader and misrepresent the information. Aside from the fact that DHMO is water, the first red flag I saw was in the FAQ, where the website exclaimed that the public should undoubtedly be concerned about the dangers of DHMO. When one pursues a deliberative approach to a problem, opinions are best excluded to ensure a rational and scientific process of reasoning, allowing the readers to formulate their own opinion on the matter given the facts at hand. Therefore, giving such opinions is in direct conflict with the initial claim to present the data regarding DHMO in an unbiased manner. Further contradictory claims meant to confuse the reader are present throughout the website, such as the response the creators gave in regard to the question of whether DHMO usage can improve one’s marriage, which was that “this is a popular myth, but one which is also actually supported by a number of scientific facts.” This claim is in direct contradiction with itself, as the very definition of a myth is a widely believed misrepresentation of the truth.
The site is chock-full of findings from “studies” which have no substantial sources or actual numbers to give a truly accurate representation of the information being presented. Specificity in such claims, as well as citing substantial sources would make for a more credible argument and improve the rationality behind the claims. Presenting the facts in a truly unbiased, scientific manner is also critical to ensuring the reader maintains a level of trust in the content being presented.
The website is filled with inflated claims that have no true basis in fact, despite appearing to be factual. This website serves as a brilliant and hilarious reminder that one must always assess information in a critical and deliberative manner in order to arrive at the truth. Like the information presented as facts to the jurors during the trial in “Twelve Angry Men,” the information supplied on this website is formulated in such a way that it reads as fact, but is actually highly questionable and must be critically analyzed in order to deduce the truth behind the claims.
DHMO is water and cannot be banned. However, if it was toxic as described by the website, readers would be mislead or confused, since no scientific, research data is used to support any claims made by the website. A lot of propaganda is included such as: 1) experiments are being conducted with DHMO, 2) devices are being designed to control and utilize DHMO during warfare situations, 3) military research facilities receive tons of it through underground distribution networks.
If DHMO poses a hazard internationally, why wouldn’t environmental organizations in the United States and around the world not sign on to mitigate this problem? Why would an environmental organization in the Netherlands and an unnamed, busy high-ranking member of parliament in another country be the only ones concerned about the deleterious effects of DHMO? Vague statements are made, but not corroborated with verifiable information.
Senseless, irrational information is also presented from former experts such as Dr. Waltz that DHMO is used dually as a disinfectant on cows and fed to them in large quantities for milk production. Wouldn’t the cows get sick or die after ingesting this toxic substance? What about humans? Further, that government regulation covers the addition of DHMO to the milk once it leaves the cow, but does not cover levels of ingested DHMO. And, due to economic pressure, the U.S. government is knowingly subsidizing the use of DHMO in the dairy industry resulting in contamination of our milk supply. The expert opinion presented is implausible and is a clear misrepresentation of facts.
The arguments presented in the website make it appear harmful before we carefully analyze or think about. The website provides irrational facts, but does not have any credible resource, data or observations to back up the evidence as provided. The distortion of the facts presented seem to only favor a particular side, making readers sway to a one sided argument. If the words Dihydrogen Monoxide were changed to “water”, the percentage in favor of banning it would be zero. Contaminated water can cause diseases. However, water is not the culprit, it is simply a means of transportation for contamination. In the website, “Dihydrogen Monoxide” refers to H20. Thus, we are only discussing about H20 not H20 mixed with toxin in it.
DHMO is equivalent to water. The chemical formula for water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom-H20. Hence, the name Dihydrogen monoxide, where di means two and mono mean one. Additionally, Dihydrogen monoxide is found in several foods we eat, used as a solvent in most insect repellents. People who become dependent to Dihydrogen monoxide can lead to death. It is found in lakes, rivers and oceans. Water is essential for life. Banning DHMO would be like committing suicide for the entire human race, because water is an essential part of our existence. Being as it is known as a hydric acid it may sound dangerous, however, it simply is just another term for water. It is unreasonable for us to ban water.
At first when reading the content on the DHMO website I began leaning towards the discontinuation of the product because all the “facts” and quotes being stated about its negative effects such as “Dihydrogen Monoxide causing overdoses in dialysis patients and can result in congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema, hypertension and DHMO can cause accidental death”.
Naturally these “facts” would make any one reading this feel the need for its expiration. It wasn’t until I read 3 items on the website that made me look for a second opinion 1 being the sub par link between DHMO and school violence. If DHMO was this horrible and unsafe as the website leads you to believe why are schools still using this product and an alternative solution hasn’t been found. Hence where my curiosity came into play and I want to know exactly what is the link between the two, that caused the deadly Colorado shootings associated with DHMO? Second was the fact that DHMO can improve marriage. How could something be so detrimental to our health yet if we ingest it regularly we can have an improved marriage?? Lastly the final point on this website that made do further research and come to the conclusion that we actually need DHMO to survive and it should not be banned was its use by the NAACP during rallies and marches. That piece right there was enough for me to look further and question what is DHMO really.
I think this website is so interesting because people can create anything they want due to freedom of speech and some people will believe anything especially if you throw in some “facts” and fancy diction. This website proves it’s up to us to take things a step further and gather as much information as possible before making a decision.
The arguments presented by the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality because being rational itself is being reasonable based on facts and reason although the site has facts they are presented in a way which makes the reader think negatively of DHMO. For example by stating “DHMO use by the NAACP and KKK during rallies and marches” you create a picture for the reader as though DHMO was the cause, when in reality DHMO simply was used by racist people during these rallies.
To improve the rationality of the argument first the author can exaggerate the truth less to get their point across don’t make your point seem scary and gain followers through fear. Present the reader with unbiased clear facts so the reader can make an informed decision. This entire site extremely negative towards DHMO which just so happens to be 2 water molecules put together but the average person would not know that reading this website.
The first paragraph on the DHMO website is designed to persuade you from the onset that there is a controversial and highly debatable issue at hand. Unless you’re a scientist, chemist or work in a related field you will not at first glance identity Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) as water. As I started reading I began leaning towards a total bann of the product. It was when I decide to futher research into the product that I realized Dihydrogen Monoxide is water. Still not convinced I continued reading the information on the DHMO website to see if they talking about a contaminant or toxin in the water that is making it so dangerous. I read through their listed articles and examples trying to find the basis for their arguments and reasons why they advocating for a ban. None of the information stated any proven facts.
The DHMO website to me is a perfect example of the power words, it shows how a writer can use words to exploit and manipulate its audience. It also portrays how the style of presentation can influence the thinking of a writer’s audience. The information is scientifically presented to convince people that facts presented is the ultimate truth. Due to the fact that the fact that the website did not provide any validated proof of the adverse effects of DHMO (water), I do not think it should be banned. We need water in order to sustain life on this planet.
This website leaves you with more questions than answers. DHMO is defined as something so dangerous but so common at the same time that makes me imagine extreme believers and followers of this movement never leaving their home to avoid contact with the every product and places that DHMO is found. The way that website is presented and the lack of rationality in their arguments just take away any ounce of seriousness that their arguments may have. Everything is presented in a very opinioned type of way. Other than the Material Safety Data Sheets, even in their FAQ page, where we would expect to find fact derived or supported information, we find very comical information about how DHMO is linked to school violence but can improve athletic performance or your marriage.
I was confused when I began looking through the site. I wasn’t sure what they were talking about. They continuously made references to scientist but none of it seemed factual. From the start it seemed biased despite the statement on their home page, “The goal of this site is to provide an unbiased data clearinghouse and a forum for public discussion”. I began to wonder why I had never heard of it. The wording was all very negative and seed like fluff, or just wording to make something seem important when it is not. Three minuets into the site I googled DHMO and discovered it was a hoax.
I think DHMO should not be banned. Although when I was reading the facts from the website, I think this dangerous DHMO should be banned. Based on their website, DHMO causes many harmful damages in the environment including cancers for human bodies. However, I was confused about the element DHMO and then I remembered that it’s none other than water because it has two hydrogen and one oxygen. After realizing the connection of DHMO and water, I think DHMO should not banned. Water is an essential part of our body and we even need to drink water in order to survive. Therefore, DHMO cannot cause that much harm as the website states. I think the main problem with this website is word choice. It uses simple words to get the attention of people where people would trust their facts without researching properly. They try to persuade the readers using misleading information. Moreover, in this website, there is no citations for any resources the website used. It is highly questionable to trust the facts about the website. In conclusion, I think DHMO should not banned based on the facts from the website.
Initially, when I started reading the contents of the website, I believed that DHMO was a serious cause. However, as I continued to read I realized that the arguments presented by the site were not rational at all. In fact, most of the arguments the creators made as you scrolled down the site, contradicted what they had written earlier. For example, in the beginning they state that even the smallest amount of DHMO can be “lethal to human” which causes the reader to think that DHMO should not be consumed at all. However, as you scroll down, you see it improves relationships in marriage and athletic performance. Clearly those statements contradict each other which makes you wonder is the product good or bad.
After researching exactly what DHMO is and realizing that it is water, I realized that this website it a complete hoax. If water is banned then how are human beings supposed to survive. This website is definitely manipulating its readers to believe in this fake cause. What makes it seem so persuasive is the structure of its words. The writers began by defining DHMO the same way as you would for any hazardous substance and continues to relate it to familiar diseases that would draw the attention of any human being. However, as a perceptive reader one can realize that the facts given are not actually facts. Most of the information given is circumstantial (as one scientist’s conclusion was “preliminary” )and not clearly proven. Moreover all the statistics about DHMO relations to school shootings and its previous uses in the past do not clearly portray how its use affected those situations.
Although it is a false argument, if the creator wanted to make a stronger rational argument then they should utilize credible sources to make their arguments more vivid to the reader.
I suppose “consumer beware” is the first thought that comes to mind. I have to hope that this is a satire site to point out that you can basically say or do anything and make it sound legitimate. For me, I think, that if this was identified as a satire site, that this would be a fine form of communication and discourse. But, in its form it seems to be misleading. Sadly there are stupid people who will believe what they see at first glance – take the posts on facebook telling them that you are copywriting the stuff you have put on their servers – ludicrous, people, simply ludicrous. At what point does misleading speech no longer have a right to protection is that I really want to ask after viewing this site. If you purposely mislead, misrepresent, et cetera, should that be considered legitimate speech? Further, if we think that, who decides what is legitimate decent?
Solely based on the reasoning given on the website, I would not be able to agree with its creators that DHMO should be banned. High school chemistry failed me until somewhere around the fourth paragraph, but even reading the first few paragraphs before H20 clicked I had numerous problems with the creators’ efforts at persuasion. The page’s question and answer format is obviously geared toward the general public, yet it leaves out one of the most important things the average person would need in order to wholly understand the argument. A highly persuasive argument would connect this concern to the audience, effectively making it their concern. Relying heavily on scare tactics, the page leaves a clear explanation out of the first few paragraphs. Good reasoning would ensure that readers can identify and understand the topic that they are going to analyze with an argument before the argument really starts.
Even Wikipedia pages on chemical compounds, usually intended to be informative and not persuasive, make an attempt to familiarize the reader with the topic. It introduces any more commonly known names, layman’s terms, derivations, and frequent uses before it delves into reactions, potential dangers, and exposures. The opening paragraphs were difficult to trust, even when my eyes glazed over at the first few mentions of “dihydrogen monoxide”. Nowhere in the article does it explain how H20’s use in so many materials, by so many circles, and its presence in so many phenomena relate to the dangers that it poses.
However, my skepticism stemmed from a basic knowledge that atomic components and their presence in dangerous substances can have absolutely nothing to do with a different compound’s safety. That said, aside from lack of attempt to familiarize readers with the substance, which would declare the substance water and likely make the reader doubt the rest of the authors’ reasoning, many of the arguments are very well made in terms of persuasion. Reason is lacking, without an explanation of the “causative” characteristic of the compound, but persuasion tactics are used well to play to reader emotion and oversight.
I enjoyed the plea to readers to take the time to understand DHMO after use of an un-scrutinized statistic like “nearly 90 percent”.
For some reason just from first glance of the website I didn’t think it was something official. As a read the content, I continued to remain skeptical about what was being stated. Some parts almost persuaded me to believe that the information was true and that DHMO should be banned. However when I read the dangers of DHMO, I realized the information was not consistent and that’s when I decided to do some research. What raised the red flag for me was the pointer that stated DHMO can cause death due to accidental inhalation even in small quantities. Then it went on to say that excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life threatening side effects. How can inhalation in small quantities cause death, but excessive ingestion is not life threatening? In my opinion they should cause the same deadly effect. The information presented was unrealistic, and after my research brought to light that DHMO is simply water, I certainly do not support it being banned. Water is essential for the existence of life.
At the moment I do not agree with the creators of this website about the ban of DHMO.
Although DHMO is “present” and “involved” in many disagreeable scenarios (re: school violence and the greenhouse effect), I am not wholly convinced that DHMO is the primary cause. For instance, there is scientific evidence provided by Nathan Zohner and the esteemed P.K. McCluskey but the creators of the site forgot citations or links! After researching these names on the web I couldn’t locate any information. So it’s off to the library for me – clarification awaits. Stronger primary sources definitely would have convinced me of this questionable chemical.
The section labeled ‘What is Dihydrogen Monoxide’ got me thinking. I wrestled with the facts because DHMO is present in “lakes, rivers, oceans, and streams”. As the science on the environment and climate changeis varied (and always changing), I’m not sure what my position is here. Some facts would be handy; perhaps even from Nathan Zohner. But as of now, I can’t decide on the policy without better facts.
Concrete examples would be a way to remedy this rational tug-of-war. For example, a top-down approach might fix this logical gap. That is, the creators could make a general claim and then provide premises that support the initial claim. That would really get me behind a cause like DHMO.
(A fun and unsettling assignment/website. Thank you for the recalibration!)
Dihydrogen monoxide is a brilliant play on common scientific illiteracies. Confusing the facts of the case can easily alter a persons understanding of the situation. The current debate about Planned Parenthood is extremely relatable with the Republican Party in the US Congress. Planned Parenthood is being condemned by the Republican Party because of doctored video tapes from a radical anti-abortion group that tried to force Planned Parenthood managers to admit they were selling fetal tissue. In reality, they were legally support scientific reason and were the victims of coercion. Yet the facts do not matter because the radical right is galvanized to dismantle government funding for one of the largest healthcare provider for women to please their political base.
The dihydrogen monoxide page is an excellent parody of how scientific jargon and statistical evidence can be used to steer an audience into drawing a particular conclusion. Many of the labels used in health advertising rely on similar tactics – think anything with the phrase “organic” attached to it. Scientifically speaking, “organic” simply refers to any compound that contains carbon. This would include all foods, regardless of how they are grown, and many less than healthy items such as tobacco and crude oil. In order for the anti-dihydrogen monoxide page to have any merit, it would need to provide some wider context for the facts and statistics presented. This would first mean acknowledging the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is the scientific name for water; which, although deadly, is a basic requirement for life on Earth. Such an acknowledgement, of course, would completely undermine the case for banning the substance as that would be impossible. This being said, however, the stats and facts used on parody page lack any frame of reference to give them serious weight. “Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect” says nothing about how often this is the case or who suspects it of being the case. Were these questions to be answered, it might be possible for this point to have a more powerful impact on its audience (assuming that there is a legitimate argument to make here).