Essay about Exposing the Hoax of www.DHMO.org

For decades, a substance known to cause burns, hospitalizations, and deaths has been found throughout the world. 3.41 million people die every year from issues related to this chemical, including over 200 children every hour. Approximately 80% of all diseases are either caused by the chemical or are somehow related to it. More substances dissolve into this substance than any other substance on earth, which is helpful for another usage of the chemical in nuclear power generators. Inhaling this substance causes suffocation, and eating too much of its solid form or drinking too much of its liquid form can cause intoxication and death. The name of this substance is Dihydrogen Monoxide, and despite its known dangers and prevalence across the United

That last bit is the author of the webpage’s opinion. ( I did a quick search on this fellows page to see if I could find out his accreditations, not surprisingly there are none. Also not surprising is his unwillingness to respond to his emails that he gets generated from his site. Oh but you can

-Yes this is a reliable information source and it does have a clear and transparent agenda.

Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information? Author, John Seigenthaler in his narrative article published in 2005 in the USA Today “A False Wikipedia Biography,” he begins his personal story by describing how his character was assassinated by publishing false and malicious “biography” under his name on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia. His first goal is to convey millions of people that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool. His second goal is to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. By establishing his credibility, building his case slowly, and appealing to both logic and emotions, Seigenthaler succeeds in writing an interesting and informative

Caveat lector is a Latin phrase meaning, “let the reader beware.” Health information on the internet is growing at an alarming rate. However, some information on the internet is not accurate or current, and unfortunately, many web sites regarding healthcare offer misleading, incomplete, and incorrect information. Many consumers do not have the knowledge to judge and evaluate the quality of online information. This paper aims to discuss how the website WebMD presents information to readers. It will evaluate WebMD according to its source, where was the source obtained; type of funding, is it commercially funded or private; the validity and quality, how valid is the information and can it be verified; and privacy, is your personal information

I asked if the website had included any authors and if there was a possibility that you could contact them. I also asked if there were any credible sources that were cited on the website. The date when it was last updated and what the website looked like when it was first created are other questions I have. Lastly, I questioned the writing style and grammar of the site.

I used this website because it looked very trustworthy/credible since there was a lot of information and a lot of details to back it all up. I understood all of the information because I have seen it in textbooks and other sources. There is also a lot of information on it about my topic, and the author had written it to be very well understood. Also, it has .org at the end, which is usually better than .com and more reliable than .com websites. Commercial websites usually aren’t the best for researching, they can be giving you very false information. Organization websites are not the best of the best, but they are better than some of your other options.

After reading the information from the site I was able to point out a few things I found interesting. One interesting thing

When evaluating the validity of a website it is important to know who published the information, the original source of the information, and if the author of the information is qualified to make such claims. Oregon community college gunman 'left behind manifesto ' does not list who wrote the article on the webpage. This means the information is not very reliable because anyone could have typed up their opinion on the event. Neither webpage lists a works cited; however, Oregon shooting: Gunman dead after college rampage contains a

I first examined the source of the information. I looked for things that would made this source believable. I looked for clues as to how they would know the information provided and what would make them an expert. As items that would help support the trust factor, I looked for information about the author and or publisher in order to gauge the author’s education or training. I didn’t find much to support the believability factor at all. I could not find any information about the publishing author or organization. There were no credentials on the “Home” or “About Us” page. The “Home” page refers to, “Our team of experts”, however, nowhere on the site could I find who those experts are. I visited the “Contact Us” page and there was a form requesting my contact information; name, email and phone number, rather than providing theirs. I clicked on the “Live Chat” radio button, and got the following message, “We’re sorry….The link you have clicked on has expired. Please refer to our Contact Us page for further assistance.” In addition to the anonymity, the written material is full of grammar errors, which also are clues to the website’s lack of credibility. In some areas of the content, the message was almost unreadable and difficult to understand. I counted at least seven

DHMO is a colorless and odorless chemical compound. The atomic components of DHMO are found in caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid. I believe that the CDC should ban DHMO because DHMO has increased while the world population is also increasing, and DHMO can harm our self and families. DHMO can also cost millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and environmental damage.

Determining the credibility of a website starts with tools that can be used to evaluate the site. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) offers information defining how to evaluate websites credibility. Key factors such as; “Who runs and pays for the website, what the website’s purpose is, Where did the information on the site come from and how is

Through such internet sites, we can get the information that the media withholds from us. The problem with this, is that anyone can put an article up on the internet. This is why many people don’t trust the World Wide Web, and blindly put their trust in mainstream media. What they fail to realize, is that main stream media can also show us whatever they want. Rather than trusting the programs we grew up watching, we all need to open our eyes and at least entertain the idea that everything we see is not always relevant, and not always factual. If we did our own research and found our own sources that we trust, we could be getting a

way? If so, be skeptical about the information it is presenting. Try to find sources that state

DHMO is very important to humans. If it weren’t for DHMO we would have cough syrups and other liquid medicines. We wouldn’t have any fire retardant or suppressant. It’s used in spray on oven cleaners, and even