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?
28 thoughts on “DHMO.org”
Comments are closed.
I started out thinking that the website was done by scientists on a shoe-string budget. The technical-sounding language seemed sciency at first-glance, and maybe because I am predisposed to thinking that there are a lot of harmful chemicals out there that are not regulated, I was open to being persuaded for a brief moment. That was until I came across the FAQ part, especially the part regarding the uses of DHMO. Below you’ll find my favorite types of uses of DHMO:
“by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,”
“by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,”
“Can using DHMO improve my marriage?
“This is a popular myth, but one which is also actually supported by a number of scientific facts. Dihydrogen Monoxide plays an instrumental role in the centers of the brain associated with feelings of emotional attachment and love. Married couples have found that regular ingestion of DHMO can improve their marriage-related activities, while couples that never ingest DHMO often find that their marriage suffers as well. ”
I’d never heard of that popular myth. I think the site was put-up by some conspiracy-aficionado.
Rationality is pretty much absent from the site. There are numerous outlandish statements made without any evidence, such as the examples above. For improvements, the website could benefit from using data gleaned from reputable scientific sources, try to use language more accessible for the general public, and delete the outlandish examples.
h2o. took me way too long to figure that out…
Like water, oxygen could easily be seen as dangerous, if you associate it with negative things. Oxygen is flammable. It is toxic if inhaled in large amounts. It is odorless and can cause rust and etc.
what i think though is the fact that till date there has not been any concerted effort to find the side effect atleast from the critics point of view. Usually with such controversies, you will find opposing groups trying to make their case look good and provide sound argument to persuade people to accept their position. Whiles it helps cows to produce higher levels of milk, that looks like genetically modified substance which has no known side effect for now. The other argument is the level of intake by humans is acceptable.
Yeah, same the KKK and NAACP with the Congress part got me to. At first glace the site looks very low budget but I still gave the content a chance as to not be judgmental. That all went out the window when I got to the Fact section of the site. Its easy to get pulled in by the scientific language and mention of federal agencies but the writers loose me with the list of uses. I think the goal is to create a sense of fear and urgency that this chemical compound is being used everywhere and by everyone. However, all it does is discredit the logic of the site and the arguments its trying to make.
Do you agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned?
Honestly I cannot answer this question. The site for all the pages of ‘information’ does not do a good job of telling the viewer what DHMO is. I believe it sets out to especially in the fact section where it states “Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters.” However as I go on the site basically encourages me to be afraid of nearly every appliance in my house.
I do not think that the arguments are the issue with this site I believe it is the topic itself. The site uses arguments that many environmentalist use to get the public excited and aware of ‘real’ chemical toxins. For example, when urging people against carbon monoxide officials make clear that its odorless and invisible but is extremely dangerous which is why the public should be on high alert and detectors are essential.
The site builds the arguments up as being of high importance but than encourages people to be afraid of just about everything. This ultimately discredits the site and the information. In other words when you start accusing both the KKK and the NAACP of poisoning its rally members there is a clear break from rationality.
I do not agree with the creators of this website and DHMO (H2O or water) should not be banned because there have no definitive evidence that H20 is dangerous to health. The website was full of facts about water but none of the facts actually have direct negative effects. The creators use language that sound scientific and expert but they are misleading. The creators associated water to things that the public know as hazardous or people that are seen as dangerous. Things such as coolant, solvent, nuclear plants are toxic to the environment. Groups such as KKK and terrorist organizations are violent and bring about chaos. The ways the creators present the facts appear rational and factual but they are only presenting what seems to be a negative effect. H20 has many positive uses but they clearly left that out in the language. The creators also used imagery to convey the message that H20 is bad for you. They used images such as guns, DHMO free logos, poison. The creators did not provide cited scientific evidence. Press reports are not reliable source of information. With vast information available to the public, it has become so difficult to obtain a reliable data. I believe social influence and herd mentality have become the dominant way of thinking.
I definitively do not agree that DHMO should be banned. The website plainly exaggerated the alarming hazardous effects of dihydrogen monoxide without real, substantive scientific research to back their claims. Their findings are misconstrued, misleading, irrational and simply do not add up. For instance, one of the alerts – “Animal Activists promote DHMO”, it suggested that “PETA has produced a web page that appears to promote beer consumption as a better alternative to milk”. The link provided did not support that analysis one bit. While we can understand the motive behind PETA’s discouraging consumption of milk, the link shared did not, in any way, conclude that PETA promotes beer over milk, nor was “beer” even mentioned in the article. Other than the already mentioned eyebrow-raising information in the FAQ page that DHMO is used in cult rituals “by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches”, the creators also misrepresented Nathan Zohner as an award-winning US scientist, to aggrandize the scope of the research. Nathan Zohner, in 1997 as a 14-year-old student, examined his classmates’ response to banning DHMO as part of his science fair project called “How gullible are we?”, which eventually made its way on the internet (more as a parody). That is all there is to that story.
To build up the idea of DHMO as a harmful chemical compound, which the creators articulated in the FAQ page, it was a notable tactic to avoid using the term H2O (water) – the more commonly used term for the same molecular formula where H2O and DHMO (di(2)-hydrogen and mon(1)-oxide) is 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. In an attempt to hoodwink the public, they chose the less familiar name to gain more attention for the campaign and persuade the public to call for its ban. If you replace the term “DHMO” with “H2O” in the website, it’s easier to see how none of their arguments really hold up and conform to the highest standards of rationality.
To improve the rationality and reliability of their findings, extensive scientific research from reputable sources should be disclosed and made available to the public. The more important subject for discussion, rather than the content produced in the website, is the seriousness of enforcing critical thinking in questioning the veracity of data presented as facts.
I do not believe that DHMO should be banned. This website did not substantiate their claim with enough compelling fact-based evidence. The arguments definitely do not conform to the highest standards of rationality. An example of this can be found in the FAQ section-
“A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country’s schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.”
In order to make a compelling, rational, argument here you would have to argue that all the schools where there is no DHMO present experienced no cases of violence (which is impossible because DHMO is water). It is hard to say what could make this site seem more legitimate and their arguments more rational when their assertions are so absurd.
DHMO should most definitely not be banned, as no human could survive long without it. I think the arguments on the site are a really great testament to the ways language can be manipulated to distort the truth. The arguments presented on the website are not technically false. They are just so vague and contain so little detail that the actual “danger” of DHMO is impossible to figure out without doing outside research.
The arguments are not rational because they’re based on a completely absurd premise — that water is dangerous and should be banned. They never lie about the construction of water, and they never specifically name that it is water they’re discussing, but they manipulate the facts in a way that makes water seem like a poison.
To make the argument more rational, the arguments would need to contain much more specific detail. They’d need to name water for what it is and argue that it is dangerous only when a nearly unheard of level is ingested in a short timeframe or when it is intentionally combined with other elements to do damage. Those arguments are buried under gobbledegook on the website.
At my first glance, the website seems a bit convoluted with information with unauthentic webpage design. Perhaps it’s the impression this group of unsophisticated volunteers wanted to leave for a debatable scientific research like this (http://www.dhmo.org/NCCA.html). Then, as I dug a little deeper, this page seems to be a bit of a joke. It says, “Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid.” Well, Hydric Acid is essentially one of several systematic acid names for water, H2O. If one doesn’t believe water should be banned, neither should DHMO.
The website attempts to outline the perils of DHMO to human life and its negative impact to the environment through various reporting venues. It goes as far as pinpointing industrial DHMO dumping, its link to cancer, and even its influence on marriage…While trying to process the ridicule of scientific argument it’s trying to make intellectually, I would reason that it may need a little more work in authenticating “National Consumer Coalition Against DHMO” and other major organizations opposing DHMO. Some of the “DHMO Related info” on the right side of the webpage link to the homepage of certain organizations, which doesn’t help prove anything. Ultimately, no matter how the page improves in its design or rationality of argument, it will never win support of the public unless it can verify DHMO is DIFFERENT than water, which is clearly not as dangerous as it describes. In other words, unless it can effectively compare DHMO and H2O, it will remain a scam.
DHMO.org is a pretty solid example of conspiracy theory trolling. It’s clear at first glance that the site is either from the early internet era or specifically designed to be ugly and nearly incomprehensible. A quick surf around the site confirms the latter. The author is intently appropriating the gobbledygook language of conspiracy theorists to poke fun at them. Specifically, the site uses dense scientific terms to obscure the real intent of the site and to try to add a level of legitimacy. Weirdly, if you are unaware of what DHMO actually is, the site is making a rational point that relies on correlation. From a purely rational standpoint, water is in fact present in all manner of natural disasters, man-made disasters, tragedies, etc. However, if you are in the know, you realize this correlation is absurd.
It seems the author is attempting to shed light on the gullibility of legitimate-science-averse people (such as anti-vaxxers) who equate scientific progress with unsubstantiated harmful effects, because they don’t truly understand or believe the research.
DHMO should definitely not be banned, since we need it to survive. A human body is made up of about 60% DHMO, and we would die in 3 days if we did not consume DHMO. It took me a while before I actually realized that this site is a hoax, and actually had to google dihydrogen monoxide to figure out that this “hazardous chemical” was just water. Once I began reading the section “What are some uses of Dihydrogen monoxide?” I started to question the rationality of the content. In addition, when I read “A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country’s schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved.” all standards of rationality went out the window. How could every instance of violence in our country’s school have one common denominator involved?
The site is full of information about water that has been skewed in a negative tone, raising alarm or concern amongst uninformed and gullible readers. I often time see people sharing links of stories they find on the internet that they believe to be factual, when in reality they are just spreading false information like wildfire throughout social media. It is important to acknowledge that you cannot believe everything to read on the internet these days. Because it is unrealistic to ban DHMO, a vital necessity of life, it is difficult to suggest a way to improve the rationality of this claim that DHMO is a hazardous chemical. Unless there is more scientific evidence that can support why DHMO is toxic and should be labeled as such.
I don’t think water should be banned. As far as we know, life cannot exist without it. This site contains few concrete facts, but does have a lot of charged language like “conspiracy” and “cover up,” words that evoke emotions in the readers. Although the interface is somewhat archaic, this site is in the same vein as modern “clickbait” articles that lend the readers few facts, but strive to rile up the audience by triggering emotion. I’m not sure anything can be done to improve the rationality of the argument that H2O should be banned.
No DHMO should not be banned. Dihydrogen Monoxide, in simple terms, is water. The banning of DHMO would mean a deficiency of an element essential to life. Every living being needs water regardless of warnings produced from a hoax website.
This website makes a “near-convincing” defense for the banning of DHMO. Techniques like using an “.org” domain and references to government agencies and other legitimate organizations provides some credibility at first glance. As you begin to comb through the text you will encounter tones of urgency and sincerity with undertones of humor. Given the intended purpose, this website loosely rationalizes the concerns for DHMO.
Severely lacking in sources of evidence, the site address the reader with mere statements. The creators of the site use different tactics to generate concern for what is a trivial matter. For example the use of trigger words to convince the reader without supporting their findings with evidence. Much of the language is very opinion-based along with the commands that galvanize the reader I to action.
In order to improve the sites rationality, the creators should remove the use of opinions and rhetorical questions. More citations should be used and the use of implicative and causative sentences eliminated. Lastly their findings and general information should not be based on their standards but standards that are recognized on both nationally and internationally.
No, the creators of the website did a poor job of trying to confuse people by renaming water with its scientific or chemical name of DHMO. Unfortunately, some have polluted several websites with purposely biased propaganda meant to spread rumour and scare people to believing in it. the following information about Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division does not endorse the use of scare tactics, particularly when telling people about the invisible killer, DHMO such as exposing humans to the deadly cancer. However, the website does not provide any listings for further reading and or sources for crossing facts. They are set up to promote certain agenda or advance the interest of certain groups. Everything seem to be entirely made up and from their view point. It defies common sense to put out such alarming news without any credible source.
To improve upon their argument i think they must come again with sources or research findings to make their case persuading and rational to the common man, and also avoid being overly sensational as this cast doubt in the minds of critically thinking persons.
I completely disagree with the DHMO’s stance on banning Dihydrogen Monoxide…H20… water. The delivery of this information tries to manipulate the reader’s opinion on the chemical compound and compare it descriptively to that of the dangerous and deadly gas, carbon monoxide.
Knowing the truth about Dihydrogen Monoxide made many of the statements throughout the website laughable. The “facts” presented in this argument are vague and represent a skewed perspective of what “negative” effects truly are and how easily they are obtained. Being informed would cause readers to have the following thoughts while reading: “DHMO is a major component of acid rain.” Wow, is there water in rain?! “Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.” UGH! My mom never told me steam burns!Or my personal favorite, “Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.” To those who are informed, his quote answers for its own comedy. No one would need to conduct a study on the ban of DHMO if more people knew that it was water!
No. First of all, “di” is Greek for two and “hydr” is the stem of the Greek word for water; “mono” is Greek for one and “oxide” is the oxygen compound with one or more elements. So, water? No. I do not agree with the creators of the website that DHMO should be banned because existence depends on water, aka DHMO. The FAQs page is littered with false statements. There is a claim that the CDC and U.S. Government classifies hydrochloric acid as a “carcinogen”. That’s not true, hydrochloric acid does not cause cancer in living tissue. There are no sources or citations for any of the “studies” or “statistics” mentioned. In fact, there are no sources or citations at all throughout the site.
Another link on this website claims that chronic exposure is “Not known to cause permanent effects other than excessive micturation due to large amounts being ingested.” It’s micturition and it means to urinate. This is a rational statement (minus the misspell), lots of water does cause lots of peeing. The other arguments presented by the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality. Perhaps staying away from far-reaching, unrelated claims as to where DHMO is found and weird descriptions of who uses it could improve the rationality of the arguments. Adding sources and stats would help too.
Full disclosure, this website makes me mad.
Entering the discussion regarding DHMO, I was not privy to any of its dangers or possible benefits. This website, which curiously reads like a Dr. Bronner’s soap label, could not provide enough logical arguments to sway me towards the side of banning the substance.
The DHMO.org website avoided citing any credible sources to support its claims of danger. The DHMO FAQ section begins as somewhat rational, listing the basic components of the substance. However, as I read “Can using DHMO improve my marriage?”
about ¾ of the way down the page, I muttered to myself, “I’m done here.”
Rationality doesn’t seem to be a primary concern for this informational page. To improve its ability not to seem like a stereotypical conspiracy theorist is behind the site, authors of the content need to provide press, scholarly or professional findings linked its claims of DHMO being such a danger to society.
DHMO will not be banned especially not after the FAQ on DHMO.org.
The arguments were never actually described in depth. An argument was presented right after the next not leaving anytime for the reader to really think. I can see how deceptive this website can be for those who just graze over the content. Arguing that something is a responsible for school violence but then also responsible for keeping marriages together got a great laugh out of me.
Anyone that argues a point must do a great job on shedding light on opponents to their position. I think that’s just about the only thing the writers of this website got right. Well there were those few attempts the writer of this website included about the impact of H20 on the Dairy industry. It included sketchy “expert” evidence. Expert evidence and research are always great components to be included in any argument.
I do not agree that the creators of this website should be banned, since their right to freedom of speech is being exercised, therefore they have the same right as other website creators to co-exist in the internet realm. Now, as for the arguments presented by the site to confirm to the highest standards of rationality, they absolutely do not. Navigating through the information provided by this website, I quickly understood that this material lacked evidence to sustain the arguments provided, therefore misleading the public to their peculiar conclusions. The language utilized by its authors can instill fear and preoccupation in the dangers presented by DHMO, which is not presented under the more common name of H2O. Here we see more examples of our last assignments in the use of language to convey an idea that wants to be driven by a particular interest of the author(s).
To improve the rationality of the arguments, the creators of the website can site reliable and respectable foundations for the conclusions that are delineated on this website, along with conventional language for the readers to comprehend the material and make their own conclusions from the information.
The creators of the website created an image of DHMO as a dangerous chemical. Allegedly this dangerous chemical was infiltrating every facet of ours lives, for example the environment, the food chain, cleaning products, gun violence and health issues. The rhetoric fed on the readers fear of disease, illnesses and death. Initially it appeared as if DHMO was killing off the population slowly but surely the website creates an atmosphere of panic using words like conspiracy, cancer, cover-up, controversy. My immediate thought was that such a chemical should be banned and erradicated leaving me wondering why would the goverment allow it to exist and I agreed with the suggestion of a ban. The website was definitely anti DHMO.
Upon further observation and reading the links of DHMO I became suspect of the information. The information contradicted itself and became misleading and for such a serious issue some of the facts became silly. The section on the account of a ” DHMO coverup in the dairy industry” was actually a story on the use of a graphic image. The scientific proof wasn’t confirmed and allegations were made against several industries and subsequently withdrawn. Propaganda was all throughout the website and could incite negative thoughts towards government, the dairy industry or the scientists. The arguments should be based on scientific facts and not allegations. Research reports were submitted by high schools and the expert testimony was weak. The website stated that “reports and results were from investigators all over the world” and posts from research findings could come from private citizens. These were not solid sources for scientific information. In addition the website was selling a “DHMO Educators Kit” for experiments. After concluding my view of the website I changed my thoughts to not ban DHMO because the websitesite’s information was misleading. I came to the conclusion that the website disseminating such information without the correct facts could be dangerous in of itself.
I do not think that DHMO should be banned. I’m saying this as someone who has personally had several bad experiences with DHMO. For example, it once went up my nose when I was at a pool in Miami and it caused a painful burning sensation in my sinuses for a few seconds. Several times my hands have been exposed to DHMO for lengthy periods of time and they got swollen and wrinkled (??). Despite this, DHMO has several important uses, such as being necessary for navigation and sustaining life, so banning DHMO would cause irreparable harm.
The arguments presented by the site do not conform to the highest standards of rationality. The site simply does not say exactly what DHMO is. Instead, each link that seems to be the next click that will bring you to the answer of what it is simply presents more shocking boilerplate. The site uses language that’s, perhaps, purposefully over-scientific. In the same way that the movie Borat was funny because most people don’t know anything about Kazakhstan, DHMO.org is effective because most people don’t know much about chemistry.
Another thing the website does is rely on experts: “A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.” There is no explanation as to who these people are, why they should be listened to, or what their study consisted of.
If this site wanted to improve its arguments, it could improve its layout and cut down on the amount of pages. Also, it could be designed in a 21st century fashion because the page now is absolutely hideous. The pages could be organized in a more coherent way. It could also address itself to a more lay audience by assuming the average reader knows little or nothing about chemistry.
When I first read the acronym I thought this was a medical supply web site. When I read what the acronym stood for and some of the exposure consequences, I recognized the substance in question as water. In answer to the questions in the prompt I can say this: DHMO, more commonly written as H2O and known as water, should not be banned. Water is a useful substance, necessary for the metabolic processes of living organisms as well as being a structural component that constitutes the bulk of living cells.
Although the arguments are presented in a format that suggests scientific research, the rationality of the information is compromised because of the web site’s failure to use more common language to name the substance, rather than chemical names. The chemical names chosen, while likely accurate, are not commonly used. The presentation that is chosen and the questionable inclusion of cancer on the page without a causal cancer link is irrational and may cause concern. The information as it is presented is misleading.
Given that DHMO is water, a substance familiar to everyone, there is no rational reason not to reveal its common name. While any chemical substance must be handled with care, as people do drown in water, the rationality of the arguments might be improved if the top of the page revealed the substance’s most common name and the clear purpose for the web page.
One of the first things that raised red flags for me immediately on the website was the very definition of DHMO. The definition itself was very complicated and almost evasive by associating the “chemical compound” to things that are generally considered dangerous such as Sulfuric Acid. Perhaps this is cheating, but I immediately googled DHMO and found out it was water. But it begs the question, why did I have to do that? First, the website looks very low budget and there are very few external sources listed that would help to eliminate immediate skepticism. Secondly, the “studies” conducted did not actually find that DHMO was dangerous but rather that other people support a ban. That does not establish facts. Additionally, the website makes many correlations between the risks and dangers of DHMO, but never establishes a direct cause. That being said, the common person likely has little knowledge of science jargon and would be alarmed by this website if they did not verify the information presented. The website aims to strike fear and incite an emotional response in readers, which should not be the goal of a rational argument. The goal of a rational argument should be legitimate understanding.
I do agree with the creators of the website to ban DHMO. My reason for this is, although it stated that it can be harmless in small quantity, the fact still remain that it is dangerous to human life. The website is very informative on DHMO and it clearly stated what it is used for and how it can affect the body. The government failed to implement policies that will stop companies from dumping waste DHMO in rivers that leads to a negative impact on wildlife. I see more harm than good by the use of this chemical and I believe that the site did conform to the highest standards of rationality to the arguments on this site. The creators were not bias in the information that they choose to share with the public. Also I find useful information as to what to do if come in contact with large quantity of DHMO.
DHMO is everywhere; it’s in our food, pesticide, and cleaning products, makes one wonder how much of this chemical are we consuming each day. Is it possible to ban such a chemical, especially when companies are still allowed to use this chemical legally?
At first glance, the website looks very outdated and like it was created at home by someone with a targeted interest in banning DHMO. The creator of the website never actually says what DHMO is on the website, they list things that contain DHMO, but not definitively what it is. All of the research that the website lists are “yes” or “no” polls conducted by school children. Because the website doesn’t really look reputable or link to any peer reviewed studies, I could not trust the claims made so I had to do my own outside research.
After realizing that DHMO is water, I do not agree that it should be banned. The arguments are not rational, water is found in practically everything, but we know from basic statistics that correlation does not mean causation. By these claims and standards, oxygen should be banned also.
I suppose if there were a chemical that was truly dangerous, legitimate studies and evidence based research could help to increase the rationality of the arguments. On a more superficial level, a more professional website could certainly increase the likelihood of the claims being taken seriously.
I do not agree with the idea that DHMO should be banned. The information provided in the web-site does not do a good job supporting the argument of banning DHMO. As anything in life if we have too much or use too much of it is dangerous like oxygen. The website only points out the bad facts of the substance they are bias in that way. They also use generalization they do not provide evidence based inspiration in order to support all their facts. They do a good job in creating fear in people who reads and sees their web-site but the explanation are not good for people to understand what really DHMO is.
H2O does not sound as scary as DHMO. But the way is presented sound scary. This is why i do not think that the creators used the highest standard of rationality in their arguments. If they called water then the readers would have a different perspective of their idea to banned it. They need better research that support their arguments and explanation to make it more valid and reliable.
I