Who killed the electric car?

I've never knew about this but in 1996, there already existed cars who were quiet, reached more or less 140km/h and didn't need any kind of gasoline...
But why is there the need to destroy them all and the project for future building? In 2005 the last electic car was destroyed and it's hardly confidencial who destroyed them and why...
Well, I think we all got the answer of the "why" question: fuel gives those rich guys so many money, that if the electic car owns the population, they wont win no more... And they don't care about the pollution problem which the fuel car is causing...
The electirc car project was destroyed in argue between the car companies and the government, as USA is gets a lot of financial import due to the fuel production they have and so, the electric car was a treath for the economy of america...
I hope the US government will accept the responsibility for this unethical action of the destuction of the enviornement...
Now I ask... why shoudn't any european enterprise remake this technology, were no stupid Bush have the right to destroy it?
Sony Pictures is producing a documentary about it, this is not a copy/paste blog, but you can find more info here:
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/



Chernobyl - 20 years ago

A normal security test as it had been regulary done on the nuclear reactors in Chernobyl, Ukrain went wrong. The total fatal causalities aren't still unknown. Tousends of Military force and Firemen striked against the fire which the explosion made and died later as the result of the radioactive radiation.
[img]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7761/radioactivity8ij.jpg[/img]
Today, the symbol of radioactivity warning «Don't approach» is the welcome signal of Chernobyl.
Reactor nº4 had to be shutdown and the scientist take that situation to make a security test.
It was tested how long could the reactor produce energy to keep the water cooling working in case of a energy blackdown, so the scientist adapted the reactor to minimum energy production so it wont warm up too much.
Suddenly, at 1h23 of the 26th April, the energy of the reactor increased quickly and there weren't enought water to cool it down, so, the reactor warmed to many and got so hot that it caused an explosion which caused a 1000 meter high radioactive dust on the nuclear central. The wind caused the spreading of these substance specialy to Belarus.
After some 15 minutes the fireman came without any security agaist the radioactive radioation and combated the incontrolavel flames of the building.
[img]http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/3264/nuclear1kg.jpg[/img]
Next day, all over the zone, the military forced the population of Pripyat (Belarus) to evacuate the place, which took only 2 hours to complete.
Today, 20 years after, signed with yellow and black signals of radioactivity, the places of the disaster aren't desert anymore, even that the signals are still there for any reason.
A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancers cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.
Adapted by the "Visão" magazine. Translated by Marc "Th3Alchemist" Soler



Think twice before you eat...

You see the chemical informations on food and some times there are these "E-xxx" codes? Most of these products dangerous and can result cancer.
I wrote here the list of dangerous and harmless products, if you wish see it just read, otherwise if you don't care about your medical health, return to blog main page.
Cancer risk products:
E-102, 110, 120, 124, 127, 131, 142, 210, 211, 212, 213, 242, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 220, 225, 230, 251, 311, 319, 330, 407, 450.
E-330 is the most dangerous.
Suspected of cancer risked products:
E-125, 141, 150, 155, 171, 172, 215, 216, 217, 232, 241, 240, 241, 340, 341, 460, 462, 463, 465, 466, 477.
Harmless products:
E-100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 111, 121, 122, 132, 140, 151, 160, 161, 162, 170, 171, 175, 180, 181, 200, 201, 202, 236, 237, 239, 260, 261, 270, 280, 281, 282, 290, 293, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 322, 325, 326, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334, 440, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 480.
Gastric related disturbances:
E-221, 222, 223, 224, 226
Skin related disturbances:
E-220, 231, 232, 233.
Digestion modifications:
E-330, 339, 340, 341, 400, 461, 462, 463, 466, 467.
Annihilators of the B12 vitamin:
E-220.
Vascular accidents:
E-230, 251, 252.
Cholesterol:
E-320, 321.
Don't know name in english, but this products causes several injures in the mouth:
E-330
Examples of cancer-risk products:
Fanta, strawberry icecreams,cheese Fondue & "La Vache Qui Rit" – has E-330.
Coca-Cola: E-319.
"Knorr" Pre-maded soups: E-311
Hot-Dogs: E-450, E-230, E-251.
So, think twice before you eat fast-food.



Apollo missions bullshit?

All we know, that on May 1961, John F. Kennedy promessed to the american people that they will put the man on the moon...
...All we know, that on the 20th June of 1969, Neil Armstrong steped on the moon and the entire world made a party...
All we know, they came back easily with some rocks of it which couldn't got shown to the public...
Now the questions is, did it really happen like NASA says?
In 1963 they sent the 1st american to the space... It tooks only 6 years to send one to the moon, land there and coming back?
Here are some true facts:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/med/as11_40_5874.jpg]No stars on the sky?
Without the presents of atmosphere, the lights of the stars are more "strong" to view, why can't we see any star on the pictures taken there?[/url]
This is a well know image of the clip where Neil put the 1st time the foot on the moon... How did this camera went there and get pointed to the stairs?
The soil of the moon is a strong reflector of the sunshines, but why on this picture, only the soil where the module and the astronaut are is reflected?
The camera they've used, as they took lot's of images on the moon, is expected to be small and portable. The negative on a film role is very sensitive, it can support more or less than 50ºC, or the negative ruins the photos which were taken. But on the moon, the temperature reaches 450º celsius. Do you belive there was that technology to make these negatives so resistant? (Not forgetting the quality of the images on such a portable instrument...)
Ok... what wrong with this image? Oh yes... See these black crosses on this photo? It helps to know he dimension of the rocks on the photos... These crosses make parte of the lens oh the camera, but if you look carefully to the second cross (near the sender of thar rover) it shows that the cross goes behind the sender... rotfl
If you can't see it well, here is a bigger picture (2 MB):
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-107-17446.jpg
[url=http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/html/as16-106-17340.html
There are a lot more evidences that this maybe bullshit...

http://www.sk-gaming.com/rss/blog/Th3Alchemist

• All
• September 2006 (1)
• April 2006 (1)
• March 2006 (1)
• February 2006 (1)