Slashdot Mirror
Mythbusters Accidentally Bust Windows In Nearby Town
Thelasko writes "In an effort to knock Buster's socks off, the Mythbusters accidentally created an explosion so large it shattered windows in a small town over a mile from the blast site. The Mythbusters had the broken windows replaced the very same day.
The Esparto, California fire chief says that several firefighters were on hand for the blast, but he didn't notify residents because, 'Mythbusters is supposed to be a really popular show. Everybody would have been out there. We would have had to cancel it because it would have been too dangerous.'"
So now if some TV show is filming a dangerous experiment near my house, I shouldn't be notified that my windows may explode unexpectedly? This public official needs to be fired. I'm all for the TV show, but public safety comes first... or at least it used to back in the day... now get off my grass!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
...could get the go-ahead on tripping 500 lbs of ammonium nitrate in order to "knock the socks off" of a mannequin.
And their big 'bleep' was located 'bleep' but don't 'bleep' anywhere near 'bleep' CUE BIG FIREBALL BOOM!
Sorry about that, it is just a pet peeve of mine that Mythbusters is seemingly censoring mundane details about what they are doing. What is the point about censoring the location where you are firing off a minigun? It's obviously restricted, and it isn't as if people are going to wander onto some military base and pick up a minigun.
If the people who watch the show were so stupid as to try and use some of the chemicals that are used in the show (and harm themselves or someone else) I'd wager that they are probably too stupid to even know where to order them.
You never saw Mr. Wizard bleeping out the chemical names on his demonstrations.
I swear that if the lawyers had their way, they would bleep 'gasoline'.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The keyword in the summary was "accidentally". This was not an intended result and was not anticipated. Especially not a mile away.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Public safety was taken into consideration - and in this case it was determined 'safer' to NOT tell the public, as the expected crowed that would produce would make matters WORSE.
It was a mile away.
Seriously, do you have anything better to do than whinge? It doesn't appear like it.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I shouldn't be notified that my windows may explode unexpectedly?
People can't notify you of unexpected things. That's why they're called unexpected.
(Yes, I replied twice and contradicted myself. Big whoop.)
Well, I think that stuff like this can take anyone by surprise. Castle Bravo turned out to be 2.5 times bigger than expected, and those guys were Atomic Scientists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
Why is it everytime someone makes a mistake there is some moron who has a knee jerk reaction of "fire the person". Give me a break. The fire chief made a call. They didn't notify the town because they didn't want a crowd at the film site - which would be dangerous in and of itself. So if they cancelled the show they transported explosive chemicals to the site and would have to transfer it off the site, then transfer it to another site...all that transport = danger.
not to forget - they didn't realize the explosion was going to be so big as to break a hand-ful of windows a MILE away.
Unfortunate yes, unexpected yes, handled properly yes, fire someone no.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Experience? They are special effects guys, they have done all of maybe 2 or 3 really large explosions and all of them were oversaw by professionals because most of the stuff they deal with is not generally available. They aren't exactly blasting/munitions experts.
Presumably, this explosion was no different. That should imply that the fault doesn't lie with the Mythbusters crew, but with the professionals that were overseeing this demonstration.
I don't like to be on this side of the argument, but here goes. The critical difference is that there is a reasonable purpose to the mythbusters having and using the substance. I'm sure they went through all the proper channels/licensing required to do the experiment. If a farmer buys a bunch of "enriched" manure, I doubt that would be a problem either. If some guy buys a bunch of stuff that can be used to create explosives and has no discernible purpose for it, then it is reasonable to be suspicious and investigate (not assume guilt, not jail, not ransack their place, just take a look and see why). The way things work is far from perfect and there are huge problems with the patriot act and the general 'they might be terrorists' rationalization, but in general it makes sense to be more suspicious of activity without explanation than activity with a reasonable explanation.
This is slashdot, not the kleenex factory. Take your whining and sniveling down the road, and please stop leaking bodily fluids on our floor. Shit happens, get over it.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Oh, that's only a factor of.... err.. 500? Oops.
Reminds me of a high school chemistry teacher showing us the difference between Na and K. His words:
"Na is very reactive, so we drop only a small amount in water to show the reaction." - poof
"K is a little less reactive, so we can drop a larger amount in water." - BAMMM! (and one erlenmeyer explodes in front of 35 students)
Of course, today that would mean the teacher would be sued by the parents for endangering the lives of all those students. But in my day, this means that 30 years later I remember that K is less reactive than Na, but not by very much.
If they had thought there was a safety issue warranting warnings...
they would have done the experiment somewhere else.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
That one was unreal; it really conveyed the power of those explosives more effectively than any other explosion I've seen on the show. It's definitely my favorite.
I grew up on a farm it wasn't uncommon for us to have several tons of this stuff delivered when we were planting.
Look, I like Mythbusters, but I've always said that I think they draw some sloppy conclusions and shoot from the hip sometimes when they really shouldn't.
The thing everyone's focusing on is whether they did anticipate this result. The question nobody's asking is whether they should have anticipated it.
Let's assume they had no basis to know going in how big the explosion would be. (As I've said elsewhere, I don't believe that; but others seem to think so... ok...) Then it's their job, before conducting the experiment, to find out. The type of explosive they used is pretty well known. If they didn't know how to estimate the size of the explosion, they should've been able to find someone that could. If they couldn't... then conducting the test was reckless.
Throwing as much explosive as you can in a pile and setting it off with at best a guess as to what the yield will be is not responsible, even if you do have the local fire brigade on hand.
At least they had the sense to repair the damage they did after the fact. (And to those who suspect they fell victim to fraud in the process: if so, it's their own fault.) Luckily nobody was standing near a window that shattered.
So, no harm no foul? Maybe. I hope they learn from this experience, though, as it sounds like they didn't learn much from previous demolitions tests on their show.
This story is clearly fake, but very well written:
...possible NSFW content...
http://www.b3ta.com/questions/darwin/post368239
Of all people, I didn't expect YOU to channel Donald Rumsfeld.
HA! Say what you will about the man's ability to run a military (as I have often and at length), but dude was a freaking philosopher. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
And here's the oblig XKCD showing you why.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Somewhat strongly in fact. I think experiment is the very essence of science. What you're chasing there is something different:
Misconceived ideas can be turned into accepted fact by flawed, or worse, deliberately contrived experimentation methodologies.
Well, of course.
But let's say some charlatan makes a bogus experiment and foists it on the scientific community. How do you refute their claim?
You got it - experimentally.
Remember a good experiment has a reproducible result. See cold fusion for examples in that arena. Cold fusion might be possible. But until you can reproduce it - by independent groups performing your experiment - it won't ever be science. Nature may have permitted it all along, but until you can experimentally verify it, it can never be science.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
And that is what's sorely missing from modern education: entertainment! Make it interesting and kids will actually pay attention for once :P
The few profs I remember from those days are the ones who were either supreme alpha geeks, or average joes with a sense of humor.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
When someone has been whooshed, make really sure you haven't missed the joke yourself before stating that there isn't one.
Actually, you seem to be one of those rare but delightful individuals who has an over-reactive sense of humor. It's not absolutely clear, I grant you, but I think it most probable that the poster believed exactly what he said: that Potassium is slightly less reactive than Sodium, but that the teacher had used way too much K because it's only slightly less reactive.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary