Job Announcement for a Tenure-track position

Typical State College

The Department of Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, and Zeppelin Repair at Typical State College in Erehwon has (pending approval of funding) a tenure-track faculty position open starting Autumn, 2008.

Ph.D. required; teaching and postdoctoral experience strongly preferred, as well as a proven history of acquiring outside funding for research. Preference will be given to experimentalists who can set up a prize-winning research program that successfully involves our illiterate culturally deprived undergraduates and prison work-release inmates and attracts high levels of outside funding.

Up to $50.00 in start-up funds are available, which will be deducted in monthly installments from the successful suck–er, candidate’s first year salary. Teaching excellence at all levels is required, as well as participation in single-handed development of introductory and advanced laboratories.

Duties include teaching (typical load is no more than 168 hours per week), maintenance of a rigorous and well-funded research program, and service on college committees and administration, including selling programs at athletic events and chauffeuring Coach Goodolboy’s football players around town.

Available research facilities include a machine shop (on a time-shared basis with the Midas Muffler franchise in Erehwon), a broken but repairable Tasco 60mm refractor, dual IBM 1800 computers each with 4K of core, a PDP-11 with high-speed paper-tape reader, a large refrigerator, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Candidates in the following fields are especially encouraged to apply: Astronomical Infrared Instrumentation, Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, Experimental Quantum Optics, Experimental Cosmology, Biophysics, and Advanced Grantsmanship, but outstanding applicants in all areas of astronomy and physics will be considered if their applications include a large enough check.

To apply, send a letter of application (including an outline of intended research and involvement of students, and a history of successful grant applications along with a curriculum vitae and three letters of reference) to:  Dr. Tenured Lint, Chair - Department of Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, and Zeppelin Repair, Typical State College, Erehwon, Everywhere 12345-0666.

Only in extreme circumstances will persons without the ability to walk on water be considered. Review of applications will begin on April 1, 2008. Typical State College is required by law to say that it is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and especially welcomes applications from women and minority scientists but we hire who we darn well please.

—————————————————————————————–

I have been seeking a full-time teaching position (or any position that would utilize my background, skills, and experience for that matter) for the better part of the year.  In December, I made the interview stage for one position but the search was canceled after the three finalists met with the administration.  Recently, the same thing happened with another search.  I made it through two of the three interviews before the search was canceled.  In the first case, they notified me that the search was being canceled; I had to learn about the second one through job postings.  I will keep trying.

New Information About Energy

I  got this information from one of the discussion lists (Chemistry Education Discussion List - CHEMED-L, for  short) that I receive.

—————————————————————————————-

The Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the National Research Council recently published a 32-page booklet entitled What You Need to Know About Energy. Geared to a general audience, the booklet is the first in what will be a series of informational booklets designed to engage readers in current topics in science, engineering, and medicine.  The series is part of the National Academies’ Communications Initiative.

I have posted a “widget” that gives you information on how to get this free book.

Was Eratosthenes Correct? A Multi-Class Science Project

Tony Mitchell

Department of Chemistry

Ohio Northern University

Ada, Ohio 45810

———————————————————————————————————————————–

I was watching a repeat of Carl Sagan’s television series, Cosmos, which prompted me to post this. I have added some notes in italics to the original manuscript.

This was written in 1989 and was accepted for publication but was never actually published. This was written before the Internet became what it is today; interestingly enough, the Internet made the communications that I suggested in the paper even more plausible.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

In teaching earth science, Eratosthenes’ work in determining the circumference of the earth in 240 B.C. (approximately) is often discussed (a description of this calculation is included at the end of the paper). In his PBS series, “Ring of Truth”, Philip Morrison demonstrated a way that Eratosthenes’ experiment could be repeated by elementary, middle school, or junior high students (which, in fact, actually did happen as I will note at the end of the paper).

Dr. Morrison’s procedure was to sight the star Antares at a specific time of the evening, drive south for one day, and repeat the measurements at the same time the next day. Noting the difference in the angle of altitude and the distance driven between the two sightings, the circumference of the earth could then be determined. Dr. Morrison suggested that a group of friends could do this on an overnight trip. (In his presentation, Dr. Morrison drove from the Kansas-Nebraska state line south on U. S. 283 to the Kansas-Oklahoma state line. As you can see, this is a relatively straight section of road, with just one “hitch” in it. It provides the base line that is needed for the project.

(from http://www.lasr.net/travel/highway.php?Region_ID=KS10&Highway_ID=KS10us283

The focus of this paper is to present an alternative to Dr. Morrison’s suggestion which has distinct advantages and avoids the time and expenses of an overnight trip. The procedure need not be done by one class alone. Students could contact students in another school in a city some distance away and ask them to participate in the project. The two classes could then decide which star to look at and the time to make the appropriate measurements. After mailing the appropriate information to the other class, each student participating can then determine the circumference of the earth.

What is gained from this exercise? Dr. Morrison used this demonstration as part of the episode in his series on mapping. In discussing this in class, students may want to look at why only schools north or south of their location and not east or west can be used in this experiment. As in the television series the way mapping is accomplished is a natural follow-up to this exercise. In addition, this exercise illustrates the idea of the precision and accuracy of measurements in general. As such, it can be used by other science classes when discussing measurement. Many texts point out Eratosthenes’ measurements compare favorably with the accepted value for the circumference of the earth, yet I wonder if student understand the relative sizes involved or the relevance of the original experiment itself. Repeating Eratosthenes’ experiment can give some meaning to what is read.

Other non-science skills are also required. In order to accomplish this experiment, a science class in another city is needed. This requires students to write other students. We want our classes to be inter-disciplinary in nature yet we seldom find opportunities for such efforts. Writing another science class offers a chance to use communication skills as part of a science project. It also shows learning as a cooperative endeavor rather than a competitive one.

Students have to make several decisions in this project. For example, how far apart do the cities have to be? Which city or town should they select? Why does the selected city have to be north or south instead of east or west of their home town? What do they write to their new partners in science?

This exercise is designed to look at one specific idea students read about in their texts. Doing it as suggested offers opportunities to move science outside the boundary of the classroom and give students a chance to become acquainted with other students whom they might not normally meet.

There are benefits for the teacher as well. This exercise gives teachers the chance to collaborate on a project beneficial to all involved. Often, because of time and/or money, teachers become frustrated in their efforts to illustrate science in their everyday life. Combining the resources of two classrooms may overcome some of these frustrations and difficulties.

It is also possible that other multi-class projects could be done in this manner. Studies in biology or geology that require different localities would be likely candidates.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

I did nothing with this particular piece after it was tentatively accepted for publication. It was too short for a regular piece and there were no other similar articles at the time to justify the page space. So it got “shelved”.

But when the Internet came along, things began to happen. There was an effort that utilized simple e-mail based communications to transfer data that ultimately transformed into “The Noon Observation Project”. I do not know if this is still an on-going project since the dates on the web page are from 1999.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Here is a description of Eratosthenes’ calculations:

Eratosthenes used geometry to estimate the circumference of the Earth.

Eratosthenes measured the altitude of the noontime sun at Alexandria at its maximum on June 21st. On that date, the Sun is directly overhead at noontime at Syene, in southern Egypt (latitude = 23.5 degrees north).

The zenith distance is the angle from the zenith to the point where the Sun was at noon; it is also 90 degrees minus the altitude. At Syene, the zenith distance was 0 degrees; at Alexandria it was about 7 degrees.

He knew how far it was from Alexandria to Syene (as Carl Sagan noted in his own television series, Cosmos, Eratosthenes paid someone to determine the distance), so he used geometry and the difference in zenith angle to estimate the size of the Earth.

Eratosthenes also measured the tilt of the Earth axis by 23.5 degrees, which gives us the seasons

From (http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/eratosthenes.htm)

Update on alternative energy

As a follow-up to my post “What Are Our Choices?”, consider the following story in the 23 May 2008 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Cross-posted to  RedBlueChristian

Intelligent Design

I first posted this on November 16, 2005 on my old blog.  I thought the time was appropriate to repost  today.

The issue of “intelligent design” in the science curriculum may turn out to be as divisive an issue as any other issue that church and community face. It is clear that there is very little common ground on this topic. Part of the problem is, in my view, that we cannot see that there is a place for science and faith in our lives. This is due, in part, to the fact that science and faith are mutually exclusive and I don’t think that many people realize this.

We have already heard what Pat Robertson thinks about the people of Dover, PA and their decision to remove the local school board. We know that the Kansas Board of Education has changed the definition of science in their new science curriculum. As noted in The New York Times, 15 November 2005,

On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state’s science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: “natural explanations.” But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.

The old definition reads in part, “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” The new one calls science “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin’s opponents, said, “The only reason to take out ‘natural explanations’ is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations.”

Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said removing those two words and the framework they set means “anything goes.”

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com, it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically “neutral.”

But many scientists say that characterization is an overstatement of the claims of science. The scientist’s job description, said Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, is to search for natural explanations, just as a mechanic looks for mechanical reasons why a car won’t run.

“This doesn’t mean that they commit themselves to the view that this is all there is,” Dr. Weinberg wrote in an e-mail message. “Many scientists (including me) think that this is the case, but other scientists are religious, and believe that what is observed in nature is at least in part a result of God’s will.”

I have published my views on this topic on this site before and may add some more thoughts in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I encourage people to look at the following sites. The recent issue of American Scientist contains a three-page article on the topic entitled “Being Stalked By Intelligent Design” (used by permission)

Another person whose opinion I value in this debate is Stephen Gould. One might look at “Evolution as Fact and Theory” for additional information.

The journal Science & Theology News contains a number of links to this topic. I did a search and obtained three pages of links. The most current and combined links are:

1. Intelligent Design’s Required Reading List - Depending on where you sit at the table, intelligent design can be about politics, science or religion. Whether you’re learning about it for the first time or delving deeper into a familiar subject, Science & Theology News recommends some of these book on ID.
2. Intelligent Design proponents and opponents
3. Intelligent design’s place at the table - Modern intelligent design theory states some aspects of nature are so specific, complex, functional or full of patterns that science will prove these examples to be the work of a designer. Mainstream scientists have said ID is not a scientific concept because it appeals to occult causes. Theologians have also dismissed ID’s theological implications, though ID doesn’t name a designer.
4. Online with Intelligent Design

Unfortunately, Science & Theology News is no longer published and the links do not work.

I hope to add some more thoughts to this topic in the coming week. In the meantime, I hope that you will examine some of these links.

What Are Our Choices?

I am prompted to write this particular thought because of a conversation I had the other day and an e-mail that I received. The conversation had to do with electricity-based cars and the e-mail related to the use of solar energy in the state of New York.

I will admit that I long for the days of “cheap” gasoline but I also know from personal experience that whatever the price of gasoline might be in this country today, it is still cheaper than what other countries are paying for the same product.

And that is the key point in any debate on the price of oil and alternative energy. If there is no incentive, then there will be no exploration. Why did Christopher Columbus sail west? Because he was looking for a shorter route to the spices of the Far East; his desire was not to discover a new country (in fact, I believe that the common thought in the 15^th century was that the Atlantic was a single ocean with Japan and the Far East on the far side of the “pond”.) All Christopher Columbus wanted to do was find a shorter route so that he could cut out the middle man and get the spice trade for himself.

Right now, there is no incentive to develop new sources of oil in this country; I believe that the laws of this country discourage such work. People may be clamoring for more refineries but that won’t solve the present and immediate problem (since building a refinery will take time) and I don’t believe that the oil companies want to build them anyway (for one reason, the environmental laws discourage such new construction).

Now, I am not arguing for a removal of environmental laws. That would simply trade one problem for another and while it may solve short-term problems, it may also create more dire long-term problems.

Let us therefore begin a discussion and a consideration for alternative energy sources. What are the potential alternative resources?

They are, in no order of importance,

1. Nuclear fission
2. Nuclear fusion
3. Solar
4. Geothermal
5. Wind

Each of these energy sources has its own advantages and disadvantages. But, as things are the present time, none of them is considered because of our reliance on fossil fuels. So we me must find ways to encourage the development and use of alternative energy sources.

We must also consider other alternatives to fossil fuels. Electrically powered cars are a possibility but how will the electricity be generated? Storage batteries could be the answer but there are environmental considerations to consider. Fuel cells are, perhaps, cleaner and more environmentally friendly but storage of the fuels would be a problem.

In the end, any option that we choose is probably going to be more expensive that what we have now but that is only because our thinking is short-term. We want the solution now when the solution will actually take time.

That is not to say that there are not things we can do. We can do an energy audit of homes and find out where energy is being lost. (By the way, there is an advertisement on some of the cable channels for a device that you can hook into your household circuit that will cut your energy bill by perhaps 25%; it is as best not the answer and at the worst a scam). Examine the possibility of solar energy for the home (many utilities offer such opportunities and, in some states, if you generate more electricity than you consume, your local utility will buy it from you).

We can do things like using public transportation or car-pooling when going to work. If you have to buy a car, consider the newer models and the mileage rather than style and size alone. There are ways to reduce your energy bill; the rising fuel costs should be incentive enough.

But we still must begin the discussion with regards to alternative energy sources. It requires not only alternatives but a consideration for the environment. It is both a local, state, and federal issue. It will require a change in the laws and it will require incentives. But it will require that we get involved by doing more than simply complaining that our energy bills are getting too high.

Cross-posted to RedBlueChristian

The Bottom Line

As a follow up to this post, you might check out “Clueless in America”, Bob Herbert Op-Ed piece in the April 22, 2008 issue of The New York Times.

———————————————————————

If someone were to ask me what my favorite television shows were, I would have to list “The Rogues” and “Banacek”. But number one on this list is and will always be “M*A*S*H”.

From its debut as a movie, it was something that I somehow identified with, even to the point that my dorm room that year became known as “The Swamp” (but that was after someone flooded the laundry room and that’s an entirely different story).

Through the wonders of cable TV and re-runs, I have probably seen ever episode of the television series, from the pilot to the series ending show, at least four times. I can watch a particular episode for a few moments and generally remember what that episode central story or stories are. This does have its disadvantages however.

I do not know the names of each episode or when they were originally aired. And sometimes what I think was in one episode was actually in another. Such is the case with one thought in my mind. There is one episode in which either Father Mulcahy tells Hawkeye that it is one thing for doctors to lose their patients but when he loses one, he loses their soul or Sidney Freedman (the psychiatrist) says that he loses their mind. As one who works with both the mind and the soul, I can find much in either of those two comments.

As an educator, my profession is the development of the mind and finding ways to encourage the creativity of our children and young adults. As a lay speaker and lay minister, I have to focus on the souls of those with whom I converse or speak with and who read what I write on Sunday mornings.

The problem with both American education and the American church today is that we have either forgotten what it is that we are supposed to be doing or we have decided to change the definition of what we are supposed to do. It seems that the church and school today are driven not by the outcome that the church and school offers but rather by “the bottom line.”

For too many denominations today, it is not the number of souls that are saved (as if that was something that could be easily measured and verified here on earth) but how many warm bodies are in the pews each weekend.

It is one thing to measure the success of a church by the number of people who attend but is that the best measure? We quite willing use demographics to reach out to find people and plant churches where the people are or will be but we also quite willingly seem to use demographics to determine when to abandon a church. A church may be losing people but we need to know why and a simple demographic analysis may not tell you what you need to know. I sometimes think that we abandon churches in regions when the church can be a positive symbol of hope and where hope is most needed because of the change in population. Sometimes we cannot help it if a whole region is losing people (portions of the upper Midwest come to mind) but if it is a pocket within a region (say an inner city), then shouldn’t the church be staying and helping to bring life back?

I will address the issue of the bottom line as it applies to the church today later. For the moment, I want to look at the application of the bottom line as it applies to education.

It seems to me that we, as a society, have turned our educational process has something driven by the “bottom line”. No longer are we interested in what students will become; we are interested in how many students we graduate. (For an interesting take on this, see Tom Chapin – Not on the Test.)

Every child, no matter how old they might be, can always tell you what they want to be when they grow up. And as they grow up, their focus on that goal becomes clearer and more defined. As educators, parents, and interested parties be encouraging that process. It is important that students have a sense of what they will do in and with their lives. We should not be talking students out of a career choice because we do not feel that it is a good fit for them; rather we need to be providing opportunities for the student to make a decision about a career.

But if their decision on a career is made because they think that career will bring the riches, fame, or glory and they have no idea of what is involved in the process, then their path to that career will be strewn with potholes and many, many detours.

I have had students who have an expressed a desire to become pharmacists, not because it is a valuable part of society but rather because they were promised a job bringing $30,000 as a starting salary when they completed their undergraduate degree. I can understand why students would jump at this opportunity. But I also have to wonder what those same students will do when they find out how much science and math they must have in order to get that degree? And what will they do when they find out the salary for this job after five or ten years is still essentially $30,000?

Similarly, I have meet and taught students who wish to be doctors and nurses for a variety of reasons. But their background and preparation, especially in the areas of science and mathematics, often limits their advancement. I have seen students who have expressed a desire to become elementary teachers because they like working with children. Again, this is a good job choice and the reason for doing so is a valid one. But becoming an elementary school teacher is a very demanding task because you must be conversant in all of the academic subjects (science, mathematics, reading, social studies, English, etc.). Most elementary majors are well-versed in social studies, reading, and English but not so in science and mathematics. The lack of skills does not prevent one from becoming an elementary education major but it does not help in the preparation of the students for further studies.

But when these students run into problems during their academic career, what do they do? Do they seek help and determine if their career choices were correct? Some do but most argue that it was the teacher’s fault and they do what our society has taught them to do; they sue (See “Avogadro Goes To Court” for one example; see “Transformation Sunday” for my thoughts and their implications for the church).

The argument posted in that particular court case was the student was a consumer and thus should be able to decide the value of their education. This argument would work if the students understand what it is that education is supposed to do. Education is supposed to give you the skills so that you can make better decisions; it is not a consumer-oriented activity in which the student decides what it is that he or she will learn.

In the movie “A Man for All Seasons”, there is the following interchange between Thomas More and Richard Rich.

Sir Thomas More: Why not be a teacher? You’d be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one.

Richard Rich: If I was, who would know it?

Sir Thomas More: You; your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public, that.

The definition of a teacher should be in terms of what their students become and they will know it when the time comes.

But when are we going to realize this? Last week I posted “Where Have All the Flowers gone?” In this post I pointed out some of the more intellectually challenging aspects of television advertising. Now I find that there are at least two studies dealing with incompetence and the inability of people to determine their own incompetence (see Social scientists alert: Gather that data!).

For right now, I think that the bottom line, at least as it applies to education today, was first expressed by Robert Frenay in the book Pulse, page 440 (from the April Mini-AIR), “That we are smarter than algae is a given. Whether we are wiser remains an open question.”

At some point, our desire to “give the customer what they want” is going to conflict with “give the customer what they need”. Then what are we going to do?

——————————-

This is cross-posted to RedBlueChristian

Things That We Discover

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you know that I have a concern for education and the direction it is headed.

There is a thread or discussion going on the Chemistry Education Discussion List (or CHEM-ED list for short) about the nature of education today.  It started with some questions about when classes were being scheduled and such schedules are driven by the needs or desires of the students.

If you are interested in reading this discussion, go to http://mailer.uwf.edu/listserv/wa.exe?S1=chemed-l and put “When did this happen?” in the first box (marked “string”).  You should get some 57 “hits” (including the new thread “Effective Teaching”).

But, as many discussions or threads do, there has been a shift from the need to accommodate or meet the needs of students to the demands students place on the instructional process (often called the “student as the consumer” model).  There is a passing reference to this model in my post for Transfiguration Sunday (“Transformation Sunday”); to save you the trouble, read “Avogadro goes to court”.

Now when I posted my note about the court case to the list, one respondent suggested that it was nothing more than an urban legend.  But, as I noted in response, a Google search for “students suing the instructor” produced 175,000 hits.  Some of these are legitimate cases but others point out the idea that many students come into class with the idea that they are consumers and they have a right to decide if what they receive is the what they wanted (i.e., student as a consumer).

I also discovered that this problem is not as new as some think but has been around for at least fifteen years.  See

1. “Student as Consumer”: A Critical Narrative of the Commercialization of Teacher Education (see http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=56) and
2. ”Should We Buy the “Student-As-Consumer” Metaphor?” (see http://mtprof.msun.edu/Fall1997/Cheney.html).

Against this backdrop, I find a little bit of good news.  The George Lucas Educational Foundation has identified a number of educators, the “Daring Dozen”, who are working to change the system.  It may not seem like twelve people (the number that the foundation has identified) may make a major change in the ways things work but Margaret Mead reminds us “…that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”  Or if you will, as Sonia Johnson (an American feminist who was excommunicated by the Mormon church for her activities), “We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.”

It would seem to me that there is hope for our educational system and that we need to be taking note of these changes.

This will be cross-posted to RedBlueChristian.com

Two Thoughts on Science and Religion

I have had one thought bouncing around in my head for a few days now and a recent article in the New York Times (“Gauging a Collider’s Odds of Creating a Black Hole”) prompts me to post it and other thought.

First

What is the ethical or religious response to the prayer at the beginning of this essay?  What do you say to a person whose creation or invention can, if used one way, benefit mankind but, if used in an entirely different manner, destroy mankind?

And yes, this is the question that we faced in 1945 with the development of the first atomic weapons?  My father was one of those who knew that his life was spared because we dropped the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the likelihood is that your father might have been one as well.

So how do we respond?

Second

Whether you think that our first encounter with other life forms is a derivation of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Independence Day”, or “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, what should be our response?  How do we relate the Good News to another intelligent/extra-terrestrial life form?

Just some things to think about today.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! The Invisible Killer

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”
• may cause severe burns.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

CONTAMINATION IS REACHING EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. The pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant.
• in nuclear power plants.
• in the production of styrofoam.
• as a fire retardant.
• in many forms of cruel animal research.
• in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
• as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

THE HORROR MUST BE STOPPED!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.” In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

IT’S NOT TOO LATE!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don’t know can hurt you and others throughout the world.

If you are confused about what dihydrogen monoxide might be, it’s chemical formula is H₂O and it is commonly called water.

Per various and sundry regulations, the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for this compound is located here.  To settle your nerves, you might try some coffee but read its MSDS sheet first (located here)