Reader reaction to Reuters news
Car that runs on water?
TOKYO, June 13 (Reuters Life!) – Tired of petrol prices rising daily at the pump? A Japanese company has invented an electric-powered, and environmentally friendly, car that it says runs solely on water.
Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on Thursday, saying that a litre (2.1 pints) of any kind of water — rain, river or sea — was all you needed to get the engine going for about an hour at a speed of 80 km (50 miles).
I was appalled to see a formerly reputable company like Reuters reporting this as if it’s just another car story. Either these people have overturned all known physics by producing a completely unheard-of energy source (that would revolutionise the entire world economy), or they’re running a scam.
But the reporter didn’t show the slightest bit of scepticism; she didn’t get a reaction from a scientist, or a physics teacher. She just gave free advertising to what is almost certainly a scam. Is this what Reuters has fallen to?
I reviewed your video story with utter amazement. I am completely stupified that the editors didn’t catch this completely bogus report. I would have thought an organization such as Reuters would have a science editor to do a sanity check on a story like this one. Any editor with even elementary common sense should have smelled something fishy about this video.
This story about a “water-fueled” car is highly misleading. Accurate reporting would note that the energy used to extract hydrogen from water must come from another source. At the least it should be explained that this will not end the need for oil.
This story has proven beyond a doubt that Reuters does NO fact checking, employs NO critical thinking, and simply prints anything they are given (or perhaps paid?) to print. You have done serious harm to the respectibility of the Reuters name. Reuters has literally become a laughing stock on science / technology websites around the world because of this story.
Competent reporting involves more than being a non-critical conduit for a scammer. Too bad nobody at Reuters has taken high school chemistry or physics. If sombody had, they’d KNOW that it REQUIRES as much energy (slightly more because of losses) to break down the water as is produced by burning it. ConradIf this car really worked, it would be a perpetual motion machine. Most likely, this car has a battery between the fuel cell and motors that is slowly draining. If your reporter would have checked with any experts, they would have quicky and easily debunked the story, or at least provide your reporter with some tough questions. The real problem with this story is that now I question the fact checking behind every Reuters story. I stronly suggest you revisit this story and dig deeper!
Come on. The only difference between Reuters and some wacko with a “news” site is reputation. If you run stories like this, you’re flushing yours down the toilet.
The text and video versions of this story drew more negative reader feedback than any other in recent memory. I think it’s safe to say that either much more critical investigating should have gone into the stories, or else they should not have been used at all: GBU Editor