You knew someone would fall for it in a big way sooner or later.
It just had to be in California, didn’t it?
Geez, that used to work. Try this.
Awesome story. Nothing like a little hysterical panic to get the underinformed in a law-makin’ mood.
That’s right up there with when some state congress (allegedly) passed a resolution commending Albert DiSalvo for his great advances in “population control”.
It was Texas. I should’ve known. :rolleyes:
eheheheh! : ) 0h Fantastic. I confess my first thought on seeing the thread title was along the lines of “oh, not that again - we have all seen it by now”, but it seems that some lawmakers have not. Oh boy!
Hmm, Celyn’s local council is a bit stupiid too. Hmmm, I wonder. 
It’s been a long time since I did any chemistry, but shouldn’t the chemical name for water be hydrogen hydroxide ?
No. When there are multiple atoms of a single element in a basal molecule, the number of atoms is always specified as part of the word denoting that particular element. If the element is named first, you add a prefix; if the element is named last, you alter the suffix (-ide, -ate, -ite, and so forth).
I remember it as “his work in the community to end the suffering of the elderly.”
originally posted by Really Not All That Bright
OK. That’s logical, but doesn’t seem to make sense when you consider such compounds as Na2CO3 which I would pronounce sodium carbonate but you say should be disodium carbonate.
Also, NaCl and BaCl2 are both chlorides even though they have a different number of chlorine atoms per covalent unit. I think the -ide, -ite, -ate bit refers to the number of oxygen atoms (sulphate SO4, sulphite SO3, sulphite S).
I haven’t done any chemistry for seven years so feel free to shoot my arguments full of holes
Anybody know the site that the paralegal cited? I’m only gettin’ hits about the news story.
Regardless, here is a related Snopes item:
I find this site a little disturbing.
Nothing to indicate it’s a joke site.
It’s a joke site. From the site:
Also note that they always refer to it as DHMO rather than H2O to keep from giving away the joke.
Actually, no. When dealing with a common compound that has a commonly known name, the proper scientific name is always the common name, such as: Water, or Ammonia. Not dihydrogen oxide, nor trihydrogen nitride.
The naming rules vary based on whether the compound is molecular or ionic.
Molecules like water follow the rule about quantity … dihydrogen monoxide.
Ionic compounds like table salt don’t … sodium chloride.
Incidentally, with molecules, the first compound listed, if there’s only one occurrence of it in the compound, may be said without the prefix ‘mono-’.
CO[sub]2[/sub], for instance, is ‘Carbon Dioxide’ not ‘Monocarbon Dioxide.’
And just what the hell is that supposed to mean, Yankee? 
From the story:
Quite frankly, I really enjoyed the way Representative Moore discharged his duty by showing up a flaw in the system. Snipes like yours are uncalled for and in bad taste. Usually, I’m in agreement with your conservative ways (being fairly conservative myself), but LAY OFF THE TEXAS BASHING! Didn’t we learn anything from all that North vs South shit last year?
True story.
I had a neighbour a few years ago who wrote a letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) warning her about the dangers of DHMO. He received an urgent-sounding reply that the Senator agrees that DHMO is a dangerous chemical and would look into banning it. He replied to the letter saying that it was a joke. DHMO is water. I don’t remember what the final outcome was (I think there was another letter or two), although he said he’d lost a lot of respect for Sen. Feinstein.
Frankly there are a lot of people conditioned to have this sort of knee-jerk reaction to any kind of ‘study’ about a dangerous chemical. A couple of years ago a PIRG student was going door to door in my neighborhood looking to get signatures for a plan to require a hazardous materials inventory to be kept at all schools, complete with all pertinent safety instructions, and to be made available to anyone who asked for it. When I asked how this was in any signifigant way different from the current requirements for MSDS’s I flummoxed the poor chap. (I play with PIRG students the way some people play with JW’s) The thing that bothered me was knowing that 90% of the people that were contacted about that would have no idea about the MSDS requirements. Or that the program being promoted was essentially redundant and, IMNSHO, set up to provide for more civil service jobs.
Add this mindset to a general lack of scientific knowledge (especially in the legal profession.) the fact that more than one career has been made manufacturing crises and then ‘correcting’ them, and you get things like the news story in the OP. (Can anyone name Ralph Nader?)
And some say that Art is dead. That site is great.
Not to mention the fact that there is no such entity as the United States Environmental Assessment Center.