Bomb-Proof Wallpaper Developed

MikeChino writes "Working in partnership with the US Army Corp of Engineers, Berry Plastics has rolled out a new breed of bomb-proof wallpaper. Dubbed the X-Flex Blast Protection System, the wallpaper is so effective that a single layer can keep a wrecking ball from smashing through a brick wall, and a double layer can stop blunt objects (i.e. a flying 2×4) from knocking down drywall. According to its designers, covering an entire room takes less than an hour."

Comments

That's cool!

[TheWizardTim]

But will it blend?

Re:That's cool!

[larpon]

I'm changing my dekstop wallpaper to this immediately!

Idle?

[incognito84]

Why is this considered idle? It seems like very promising and useful technology.

Re:Idle?

[Rick the Red]

Seems like this would be a best seller in tornado alley.

Re:Idle?

[MrMista_B]

Because the editors are trying to scam you into thinking Idle isn't the craphole it really is.

Re:Idle?

[Garridan]

Probably because it was a nearly content-free "article" that had a short video clip of some shit getting smashed. Not complaining. It's a huge improvement for "idle"... but there it is.

However, I seriously doubt that this material would actually protect a house from much. The impact from the wrecking ball broke the brick, and the "paper" held it together. But what happens when you put a roof on, and you set up the bomb? First, your doors and windows are still just as fragile... and if the impact is as strong as the wrecking ball, the entire front of the house loses structural integrity, and caves in. Suddenly, the roof doesn't have enough support, so down it comes on your head.

Re:Idle?

[msimm]

Because idle is a failed concept still looking for a justification.

Re:Idle?

[Hognoxious]

Suddenly, the roof doesn't have enough support, so down it comes on your head.

Better yet, the armoured wallpaper makes it impossible for rescuers to dig you out, or air to get in.

Re:Idle?

[Muad'Dave]

The videos clearly show that it isn't useful for keeping structure intact.

I disagree. The videos show me that the main failure mode of masonry walls is by 'folding' when the joins between blocks separate. This sheeting is very strong in tension, apparently, and prevents the block joints from opening to the point of causing the wall to tumble. I assume the results from a bomb overpressure wave would be similar to those from the wrecking ball.

Didn't they feature a similar experiment of one of those "Mythbusters" knockoff shows? IIRC, they used pickup truck bed liner sprayed on the test walls, and had similar results.

Re:Idle?

[wagnerrp]

The phantom zone...

Re:Idle?

[GaryOlson]

On a vector perpendicular to normal space.

Re:Idle?

[gandhi_2]

Or just wrap the wrecking ball in this stuff, for safety purposes.

how flexible is it?

[rich3rd]

i think i need underpants made out of this stuff.

Re:how flexible is it?

[Dante Shamest]

I find your needs disturbing.

Re:how flexible is it?

[FatLittleMonkey]

I find the juxtaposition of "underpants" with Vader's "I find your (lack of faith) disturbing," to be mentally painful. Ow ow ow, force-balls.

Re:how flexible is it?

[ArsenneLupin]

It's bomb-proof, not rocket-proof...

Re:how flexible is it?

[Macthorpe]

I find your underpants lacking.

Now just need a bomb-proof wallpaper for windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Might reduce the BSOD freq.

Kevlar

[inKubus]

It looks like it's just self-stick Kevlar. So it's going to be hideously expensive. However, maybe the Army overpaying for it will help them find advanced production methods to cut costs and benefit us in the long run. But then what? Possible uses: line car gas/hydrogen tanks with it. But aside from that and protecting masonry walls from disintegrating in an explosion, I can't see any practical use. As a commenter on the article site said, what if this is a load bearing wall? Looks like it would just fold up and take the building with it. Great, no shrapnel, I get it. But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, I don't see it happening before a nanotech alternative that's self-healing and much better at linear support.

Re:Kevlar

[RobVB]

But as cool a future would be where every building is bomb proof, ...

Then they'll just make bigger bombs. If Greek and Roman armies never used leather and chain mail armor, people would still (?) be robbing liquor stores with bows and arrows.

Re:Kevlar

[Jane Q. Public]

Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.

As for the other thing, that's the whole idea: better armor makes them develop bigger bombs. That is a back-and-forth that has been going on for centuries.

Re:Kevlar

[Jane Q. Public]

Mail (chain) armor was generally less useful against arrows than plate to start with... that is one of the reasons that plate armor was developed in the first place. But if you think that mail armor was often a supplemen (worn under) plate armor, you are mistaken. It might have been in rare instances, but in general plate armor was enough of a burden that any other metal would have weighed far too much and further hampered the warrior's effectiveness in battle. Plate was the "ultimate' body armor. It may have had some mail at weak points such as armpits but in general mail and plate were not worn together.

Re:Kevlar

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the apostrophe in "tornado's",

Re:Kevlar

[Jane Q. Public]

I should qualify this a bit. A major problem with mail was that arrows tended to punch through it. Especially arrows that had a long sharp point, designed to work against mail. It might not penetrate enough to be a killing shot but that's rather irrelevant in battle: the idea is to make as many of the enemy as ineffective as possible. A couple of flesh wounds can take out a combatant; it need not be an arrow through the heart.

So some groups started attaching plates to their mail in front, in order to better deflect the arrows. (And other blows: they then realized that plates tended to spread the impact of other weapons as well, minimizing injury.) Plates worked so well that a few groups got the idea that covering the whole body in plates would make the ultimate warrior. And indeed, from s defensive standpoint, plate armor withstood sword blows and thrusts and also arrows much better than any of the older stuff did.

Henceforth, the elite classes would wear plate armor, and the lower classes would use mail or leather or lesser forms of armor. But the only time when mail and plate were commonly used together (i.e., large quantities of both plate and mail), was in that earlier, intermediate period when plates were added to mail as an add-on, as it were.

This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well.

Amazing what can be done with some bent pieces of wood.

Re:Kevlar

[Xest]

It's not that simple, different arrow heads were effective against different armour types, this is why sometimes chain was worn with plate.

Arrows with thin, pointed heads (bodkin arrows) were more effective against chain mail armour because they could pierce between the links and split them much more effectively than wide edged broadhead arrows could.

In contrast, bodkins weren't terribly effective against plate - not so much because of the shape, but because they were rarely hardened. Whilst hardened broadheads fired from longbows could penetrate plante they were far from the death's knell of plate, hence why the Spanish conquistadors in South America were plenty happy to use it still despite the natives being extremely skilled archers having indepently created longbows.

The real death's knell for plate was the spread of firearms, something the native people of South America did not generally have (they had looted weapons and such but not widespread) as a weapon to fight back against the conquistadors.

Even certain silk armour was popular in some parts of the world, because it didn't tear when hit by a broadhead and so the silk could be used to remove the head preventing infection from the arrow head. It would sometimes be used under chain, plate or both.

Really, it's just not as simple as longbow beats plate, the only weapon to successfully have a long reign against pretty much all types of personal body armour has been the firearm until the invention of kevlar.

Re:Kevlar

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay, having looked this up again (I hadn't for some time), I will have to back down from my position that the longbow killed plate armor. But the longbow did demonstrate that it was no longer the panacea it had been (as at Agincourt and other examples), and it gradually faded starting about then, through the advent of early firearms, and basically died in the form of full-body armor not long after.

While I am not "calling bullshit", as it were, I find the story of the silk armor to be a bit incredible. I am pretty familiar with silk and its properties. I am not saying it was not popular, or that there were not stories, but I seriously question the effectiveness of any quantity of silk that anyone but a "noble born" could afford, as armor.

What I can say with authority, however, is that kevlar, by itself, is not and has never been particularly effective against "firearms" in general. It can prevent the penetration of certain handgun rounds, but by no means all, and still allows considerable damage to the wearer. For the most part kevlar vests were worn by law enforcement and the military to reduce damage, not prevent it. Even for the handgun calibers that kevlar would normally stop, pointy jacketed and/or hardened slugs can still penetrate kevlar like butter. Even relatively low-power rifles will punch straight through a kevlar vest.

However, the combination of kevlar and high-tech ceramics ("Dragon Skin" is probably the best example) can withstand a hit from a relatively high-powered rifle, and with relatively little damage to the wearer. Especially if some of the newer aramid-type fibers are used instead of kevlar. But those developments are VERY recent... no more than a few years.

Re:Kevlar

[rxmd]

Um, you might want to check your history again. The longbow was the weapon that made plate body armor obsolete.

Actually it wasn't. Plate armor was widely used in Europe after the Battle of Agincourt in 1415; arguably it gained in popularity.

It was very difficult to pierce plate with a longbow. The English victory at Agincourt is more due to the terrain than anything else; arguably plalte became even more popular after Agincourt, precisely because it offered reasonable protection against arrows. (Protecting horses etc. was another matter.) The crossbow did a much better job against plate armor. It delivered more kinetic energy, and it took much less time to train a crossbowman than a longbowman. Firearms did the rest in the 15th and 16 century. The single most driving factor, however, was cost - plate armor was too expensive to make and maintain, and if you can hire a whole squad of Landsknechts (arquebusiers, what have you) for the same money it takes to have plate armor made for yourself, the arquebusiers win. At that point, however, longbows had already been obsolete for more than a century.

Re:Kevlar

[Antique Geekmeister]

This, also, is misleading. Some of the most spectacular remaining samples and artwork of armor are plate, but are for _jousting_. Like modern bomb-proof armor, what is worn for such a specialized use is far bulkier, more expensive, and heavier than actual combat armor. And even the best plate was often supplemented at joints such as knees and elbows and hands, with chain where making joints out of plate would be too awkward or expensive.

Also, the better plate of the Middle ages was certainly capable of stopping the ordinary "clothyard shaft" of the longbow. The tips of the clothyard shaft were typically rather soft, inexpensive steel: it _flattens_, bends, and glances off with even a quite direct hit on a good quality breast plate or helmet. (Yes, I've seen this tried.)

It is misleading to say "the bow and arrow drove the change" when the bow and arrow predate civilizaiton: plate armor does not. Other factors include the introduction of the _inexpensive_ long bow: the price of a single armored knight was easily undercut by the price of 20 farm boys with bows, and they could produce an arrow storm that would not only kill the knight's less armored steed, but was likely to put clothyard shafts in his joints. Couple that with a muddy field where a knight's boots and heavy armor will bog down, such as occurred at Agincourt, and the yeomen with daggers could easily beat the French knights to death, force their visors into the mud to drown, and shove daggers into their eye slits.

The concept of "plate" long predates the middle ages, remember: even the Greeks and wealthiest Egyptins had breast plates or bronze, quite effective against the weapons of their time. Their efforts were limited by weight and the strength of the metal, but it was certainly the ancestor of "plate".

Re:Kevlar

[ShakaUVM]

"
This is definitely not intended as a complete history, but a brief summary and generalization. Still, the main point is that among other things, the bow and arrow drove the change from mail to plate armor, and then, with the development of the longbow, made that obsolete as well."

Uh, no. If anything, the price of plate mail, combined with gunpowder, made it obsolete. At Agincourt, the longbow shots were used to bog down the French knights in plate mail (and to score the occasional hit through an eye slit and on the mounts).

Longbows could sometimes penetrate plate, but only at close range and it also depended a lot on the quality of the plate mail and of the arrow.

Plate stayed around well into the gunpowder era, though not the full plate suits, but more the breastplate, helmet, demi-greaves (full plate on just the front of the legs), etc.

Breastplates during the English Civil War were "proven" by having a musket fired at them from 10 paces - you can see the dents on breastplates from this era in the Tower of London. (Hence the term bullet-proof.)

Various bits of full plate have been used all the way through the Napoleonic Wars and WWII, and is still rather effective against small arms fire, though the various modern kevlar and ceramic inserts are generally superior.

Re:Kevlar

[mdarksbane]

I thought the main reason was that it takes years to train a longbowman and minutes to train a musketeer?

Rate of fire, accuracy, and distance were all superior for a longbow, the training and strength required to draw one was a biproduct of a very specific lifestyle that only existed for a short period of time historically.

Re:Kevlar

[tabrnaker]

I think the whole point is that they can make money from it.

A cheaper solution which i'm going to be experimenting with in earthquake prone mexico is building a zero energy home using 18"-24" rammed earth walls doped with lime and placing chicken wire inside both sides of the frame to embed it directly into the wall as it's being constructed. There's some evidence to suggest such a method will render an earthquake proof wall, though nobody has quite done it in this manner before, and give it a couple of years and no wrecking ball is going to tear it down either.

Top it off with a self-supporting roof and the most danger you'll be in is from falling books... and that 30' crevasse opening under your feet, but you can't solve everything in a day :)

If i could find a non-leaching easy to construct plastic (easy for an uneducated native as i want all my structures to be buildable by hand) i might try out the concentric rings idea to absorb and deflect seismic waves.

Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this can stop projectiles from penetrating the wall, then think about the protection it could offer from tornados and hurricanes. Obviously not a direct hit, since there'd be far more structural damage, but how much of that damage caused by flying debris could be mitigated. At the very least, the protection it could offer for occupants.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[rekenner]

Eh.
Really, it's useless for hurricanes, aside from in places where people wouldn't be prepared for a hurricane anyway.
At the very least, Florida's building code is such that, for anything built in the last 17 years (at least - I know the standards were strengthened after Andrew), the wind causing impacts is not what does damage - Aside from to windows. It's the the wind speed and pressure differences that destroy roofs and cause structural damage, and flooding that causes the most damage, really.
Whoo, being a Floridian does have it's uses.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Jane Q. Public]

The Mythbusters pretty much put that one to rest. Pressure differential (closed vs. open windows for example) makes almost no difference at all.

What raises the roof is simply the shape of the roof. It causes lift that pulls it off the house. (Yes, that is a pressure differential, but not in the sense most people mean.) It is not interior pressure blowing the roof off, nor massive negative pressure outside "sucking" the roof off. It is simple aerodynamic lift.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Quantumstate]

This seems to be a common misconception, probably due to it being taught badly in schools. Taking an aeroplane as a specific example since this is the most common example of lift. You will find that the Bernoulli effect (the lift generated by a pressure difference above and below the wing) is not the main reason why planes fly (although the effect does exist, it is just not a large enough force to keep a plane up).

What demonstrate this most clearly are symmetrical winged aeroplanes which are things like stunt planes which often fly upside down. It should be evident from the fact the wing is symmetrical that the common explanation of lower pressure above because air goes around a curve making it go faster has zero effect here.

If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.

I have not read anything about how houses are affected but I would imagine it would be a similar effect with the roof deflecting air causing a force.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Jane Q. Public]

This is an issue that has been much debated, and to the best of my knowledge not yet firmly decided.

For one thing, hard-science experiments and calculations involving the Bernoulli effect over curved surfaces were what allowed the Wright brothers to be the first in powered flight. This is firmly established in history.

On the other hand, what you say is true, in that symmetrical wing plans can still achieve lift. However (as you point out) not when completely horizontal to the airflow.

So on the other, other hand, there is still measurable Bernoulli effect over a symmetrical wing, at any significant angle of attack.

I am not disagreeing with you, simply saying that as far as I know, this is not a decided issue. Yet.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[smoker2]

Sorry but that's bullshit. Pressure difference is the main mechanism for a standard wing to work. You are actually impeding the air flow under the wing, which implies ... higher pressure !

The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.

You would think that wikipedia would agree with your assessment if you were correct, but no, no they don't. Have a read.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Overunderrated]

This is an issue that has been much debated, and to the best of my knowledge not yet firmly decided.

No, it is not an issue that has been debated. The practical aerodynamics of airfoils is very well settled.

If you have paid attention carefully when flying you may have noticed that a plane does not fly completely flat most of the time. There is a small angle between the planes wings and the direction of travel. Because air tends to follow the surface of the wing (sometimes called the Coanda effect) this means that the air gets deflected downwards by the wing. If the air accelerates down then by Newton's laws there is an equal and opposite force upwards on the plane generating lift so it can then fly.

1) This has little to do with the Coanda effect. 2) While there is momentum imparted onto the lower surface of a wing at a positive angle of attack, pressure distributions along the surfaces dominate the behavior of the airfoil. Air is slowing down when it follows the lower surface of a flat plate, and speeds up along the top, which gives (gasp) a pressure differential.

Re:Forget bombs, think hurricanes and tornados!

[Overunderrated]

The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.

Wanted to clarify this. The reason for symmetric airfoils on fighter aircraft is that camber provides no additional lift (compared to a flat plate) in a supersonic flow. Lift coefficient is still linearly proportional to angle of attack at supersonic speeds. However, drag coefficients rise quadratically with increasing camber/thickness. Thus, supersonic fighters have very thin, very symmetric airfoils. http://books.google.com/books?id=woeqa4-a5EgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=anderson+compressible#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Wallpaper anchored in demo

[Concerned Onlooker]

Well, it certainly looks interesting, but in the video the wallpaper was anchored very securely at the top and bottom of the test wall. I'd like to see how it does with only the sticky backing of the product itself keeping it on the wall.

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo

[bistromath007]

It is meant to be installed with anchors. It would remain stuck to the wall and stop shrapnel fine without them, but when the wall bows, the tape would bow with it, causing a collapse. The anchors make the tape provide tension that keeps the wall up. Here's a video about the stuff that will clarify.

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo

[cptdondo]

This is relatively old tech. 3M has been making a window film that's bomb proof for years. The problem is that the the window frame and the surrounding structure has to be able to take the load when the film is anchored to the frame.

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/WF/3MWindowFilms/Solutions/Government/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECFTDQGG44_nid=R14R9R3CBCbeT4DCJBL6BVgl

Heck, two layers of ordinary mylar film stuck to a window are "bomb proof" - as long as you anchor them to something.

As for the comments about structure - most commercial buildings today are steel frame with infill. That infill can be masonry or stud or prefab wall sheets. You can take out all of the infill and not hurt the structure. Heck, you can take out a lot of the structural pieces and the structure will still stand.

New department for demolitions firms

[The Rizz]

I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?

Discovery channel beat them to it.

[WarJolt]

Rhino liner works great

Ask Larry Niven...

[happyslayer]

Maybe in the next movie, Superman (or "LL") could put in an order for condoms made out of this material. After all, it would certainly solve a lot of problems.

Might not punch through, but...

[macraig]

... you don't have to punch through a wall to otherwise destroy it. Even if this stuff stops a wrecking ball from breaking through a brick wall, can you imagine what kind of a shattered mess it will be in after force of the impact? It will still have be rebuilt from the ground up. The video in TFA demonstrates that: if that block wall had been a load-bearing wall, whatever big weight it was supporting would probably still come crashing down.

Fire fighter survival....

[cantbeatL337]

As a volunteer firefighter I see this is a horrible idea for being put in use in homes and offices. Im not sure how easily a firefighter will be able to get through the material. If a firefighter becomes lost or disoriented in a building during a fire, one tactic they can use is to find out where the nearest window is and if they can get to it easily. Sometimes they will need to go bust through an interior wall. With this wallpaper I think it would be near impossible to get through the wall which could lead to unnecessary deaths.

Embed in concrete

[handy_vandal]

How about embedding kevlar-web in concrete? As a building technique generally. Earthquake resistance?

Re:Felt

[Anonymous Coward]

No I agree. Longbows made armoured knights obsolete.
The Battle of Agincourt showed how effective longbows were vs plate.

But in hand-to-hand combat, plate's weakness was a concussion weapon.

And my original point in posting was that felt plus chain was sufficient to protect against most arrows.
Sorry I came in in the middle of the argument.

and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They shot at us with their great arbalists, wounding the Moslem horses and their riders. I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

Re:Felt

[Jane Q. Public]

"But in hand-to-hand combat, plate's weakness was a concussion weapon."

That's one of those "Yes, but..." things. It has to be taken in context. Yes, plate armor was vulnerable to "denting" weapons. If your armor was crushed around you, you could be disabled even if you were not particularly injured.

But that has to be compared to the protection that mail armor offered against crushing weapons... which was virtually none. Your armor would not be crushed around you, you would just be crushed instead. So plate armor was still far superior in that sense.

Re:Felt

[rekenner]

Gaaaah, I covered the damn battle of Agincourt. Archery wasn't the main killing force in that fight. It was the field, that they rushed through despite it being a horrible situation and totally in favor of the English. Sure, archery killed, but it was more exhaustion and stupidity.

Also: The best way to defeat a well armored foe was not an impact weapon - felt and padding under the maille and plate stopped most of the damage - but stuff like http://www.crazywolffarms.com/images/pollaxe_1_.jpg that bad boy. Polearms and short weapons. If you get a knight off his horse and stun him long enough to shove a dagger through his eyes, he's fucked.

Re:Felt

[rekenner]

Also, really, as I said before... plate was invented after longbows. I mean. Really. Let that sink in. Longbow: ~1250AD. Plate? 1300s. Plate was the response to longbows in the arms race. Gaaaah.

Re:Idle? AYB.

[Yoozer]

But what happens when you put a roof on, and you set up the bomb?

Well, that's obvious and it was explained all over the internet, several years ago.You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

Re:Idle? AYB.

[DrMrLordX]

All your wallpaper are belong to us.

Re:Felt

[TapeCutter]

Yep, according to "Time team" their steel boots got stuck in the mud at Agincourt (like gum boots do), the English ranks were mostly wearing rags as shoes and could move more freely. Longbows were the WMD of the middle ages, especially when you had 10K archers all of whom could fire fast enought to keep 3 arrows in the air at once. Such a volley of arrows flying through the air is said to make a roar that could be heard for miles. As to wether they were effective against armour apparently that depended on what type of metal the amour and arrow heads were made of.

Re:Go big or lose your wall

[wish bot]

Come on guys - it's physics.

This material is great in tension - that's it. If you 'bend' a material, the surface closest the the force goes into compression, and the surface away from the force goes into tension. How do you strengthen a wall? Increase the compressive strength of the surface closest outside, or increase the tensile strength of the surface on the inside. Put this stuff on the inside, smack the outside with a wreaking ball, and whatdoyouknow - the wall stands up.

I'm not saying that this isn't cool, but it's not unique - thinking composite materials here. Laminated glass does this kind of thing easily for example, when using the right kinds of laminates.

Demonstration very misleading...

[gooneybird]

That demonstration is very misleading.

Observe that the material is not actually fastened to the wall, rather is is anchored to the top of the wall and the bottom of the wall (look at the piece of angle iron in the demo)

This angle iron also distributes the force across the material, without it, it would just rip out where it was anchored, such as if just screws were used to attach it. I would bet that that piece of angle iron is pretty well tightened...

If it were truly fastened as wallpaper, then it may prevent the wall from shattering, however the wall would still collapse where the material stopped unless anchored (as in the demo). Hence, instead of pieces of a wall falling on you, the entire wall would just fall on you, probably killing you...

And yes, the rest of the structure would still collapse on you as well.

This is probably an advance, however it probably would require new structural building techniques, as well as additional steel anchors/angle iron for it to be truly effective. Not something joe public could ever afford, but I am sure governments could "find" the money.....

Re:missing the point

[Wonko the Sane]

Don't you ever stop to think that perhaps living in areas known to be hit with natural disasters/extreme climates isn't the best idea?

So exactly where on earth can you live where none of the following occur:

• tornados
• hurricanes
• floods
• wildfires
• blizzards
• sand storms
• tsunamis
• avalanches
• mudslides
• sinkholes
• drought
• volcanos
• earthquakes
• ice storms
• extreme heat
• extreme cold

Re:Wallpaper anchored in demo && not load

[thisnamestoolong]

It is certainly true that this wallpaper would not prevent structural collapse, but just because it does not solve every problem associated with a bomb blast does not mean that it isn't worthwhile! For starters, many of the walls in a given building are NOT load bearing in any way -- they could go away completed and the structure would be fine. Secondly, even load bearing walls will be able to sustain a certain amount of damage before caving completely. Even if this reduced the damage long enough for people to get outside before the building collapsed, we would be saving lives. Thirdly, one of the biggest dangers from a bomb blast comes not from the actual concussive force of the blast but from the huge amounts of shrapnel. This would effectively render the shrapnel a non-issue for the inhabitants of the room. So yes, this is not a perfect solution. If you put this up in a room, a bomb could still kill you. It will, however, drastically increase your odds in most scenarios.

Re:Go big or lose your wall

[holmstar]

The point isn't to prevent destruction (have to repair or replace) the wall. It is to save the lives of the people on the inside of the building. This "wallpaper" idea seems to do well at that specific task when used on brick/masonry walls.