Did Mythbusters' Cannonball Attack San Francisco?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the incident involving a cannonball that reportedly left the set of the show Mythbusters and caused damage in a residential area. Participants explore the implications of this event, the show's approach to safety, and the scientific methods employed in their experiments. The conversation includes opinions on the show's entertainment value and the risks associated with their stunts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the cannonball incident, noting its trajectory and the damage caused, while emphasizing that no one was injured.
  • Others express frustration with Mythbusters, suggesting that the questions they address often have already been answered and that they lack thorough research.
  • Several participants argue about the safety measures taken by the show, with some asserting that they are generally careful, while others contend that this incident reflects a lapse in safety protocols.
  • There are mixed feelings about the entertainment value of the show, with some participants enjoying the stunts and others criticizing them as reckless.
  • Some participants compare the show to Steve Irwin's approach to danger, suggesting that while entertaining, it carries inherent risks.
  • A few participants highlight the importance of engaging the public in science, even if the show does not strictly adhere to the scientific method.
  • Concerns are raised about the responsibility of conducting experiments in residential areas and the potential consequences of accidents.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the safety practices of Mythbusters or the appropriateness of their stunts. Some agree on the entertainment value of the show, while others remain critical of its methods and risks.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the lack of clarity regarding safety measures and the potential for accidents, indicating that the discussion is influenced by personal experiences and perceptions of risk. There are references to specific incidents and the show's history, which may affect opinions on its practices.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in discussions about safety in experimental settings, the intersection of entertainment and science, and the public perception of scientific inquiry may find this thread relevant.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Then, according to news reports and statements from the sheriff’s office, the errant cannonball stormed off the set and headed over to a residential neighborhood, bounced off a sidewalk, tore through someone’s front door, zipped up the stairs and through an occupied bedroom, blew out the back of the house, blasted over a six-lane thoroughfare and skimmed the top of another house, before brutally attacking a parked Toyota minivan.

So cannonballs can bounce. Another myth busted!

No one was hurt. Did they get lucky!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That show drives me up the wall. Often the questions they supposedly answer have already been answered and a little better research is all they need. They talk about the scientific method, but don't seem to have much appreciation for peer review and thorough research.
 
They should ban these stupid shows :devil:.
 
Mythbuster Problem Solving Algorithm:
1. Find a question.
2. Test it.
3. Is it "confirmed", "busted", whatever?
4. Who cares?
5. USE (MORE) EXPLOSIVES!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
No one was hurt. Did they get lucky!
When did this happen?
 
Scanning articles, it says it happened Dec. 6th.

I'm still entertained by quite a bit of what they do.
 
S_Happens said:
Scanning articles, it says it happened Dec. 6th.

I'm still entertained by quite a bit of what they do.

Me too. I like the fact there's someone out there building boats and canons out of duck tape.
 
I see these guys the same way I saw Steve Irwin. What they do is cool, but sooner or later something is bound to happen. Given the path of the ball, they were incredibly fortunate that no one got killed.

After seeing a cement truck disappear into thin air in a giant explosion, it was clear that these guys could be really dangerous.
 
wuliheron said:
That show drives me up the wall. Often the questions they supposedly answer have already been answered and a little better research is all they need. They talk about the scientific method, but don't seem to have much appreciation for peer review and thorough research.

Nothing can be all things to all people, covering an entire philosophy. Mythbusters is not intended to.

Mythbusters is not about The Scientific Method per se; it is about experimentation.

That is not a shortcoming of the show; that is a strength.
 
  • #10
What impact (:smile:) do you think this will have on the show? Will they curtail their activities? I see Adam and Jamie were not present. Will the juniors catch heck?
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
I see these guys the same way I saw Steve Irwin. What they do is cool, but sooner or later something is bound to happen. Given the path of the ball, they were incredibly fortunate that no one got killed.

After seeing a cement truck disappear into thin air in a giant explosion, it was clear that these guys could be really dangerous.
They are movie FX guys. Every once in a great while someone does get hurt while a movie stunt is being filmed. This is actually the first time I'm aware of that something got out of hand for the Mythbusters, and, they were extremely lucky no one got hurt.

Steve Irwin was much more cavalier in my opinion. I remember one episode where he put on some goggles and provoked a poison-spitting snake to spit him in the eyes over and over. It was insane.
 
  • #12
zoobyshoe said:
This is actually the first time I'm aware of that something got out of hand for the Mythbusters, and, they were extremely lucky no one got hurt.
I agree. I'm pretty impressed with how careful they are. This is a good example to set. (not that anyone should be trying to follow their example.) Only once did I ever see them (the juniors) go light a fire without proper safety gear (boxcar wine case bomb).

But boy, when something goes wrong, it goes spectacularly wrong.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking said:
I see these guys the same way I saw Steve Irwin. What they do is cool, but sooner or later something is bound to happen. Given the path of the ball, they were incredibly fortunate that no one got killed.

After seeing a cement truck disappear into thin air in a giant explosion, it was clear that these guys could be really dangerous.

Mythbusters guys have mighty mouths but their acts usually are not that impressive, I think.
 
  • #14
rootX said:
Mythbusters guys have mighty mouths but their acts usually are not that impressive, I think.

I've never been a fan of the show but I did like the cement truck. An entire truck just disappeared in a giant explosion. It was quite impressive.
 
  • #15
zoobyshoe said:
Steve Irwin was much more cavalier in my opinion. I remember one episode where he put on some goggles and provoked a poison-spitting snake to spit him in the eyes over and over. It was insane.

Yeah, Irwin was crazier.

But you have to look at the logic being used here. If something goes wrong, where does the cannon ball go? "A residential area" is not the responsible answer.
 
  • #16
I actually really enjoy their show. It's not really about teaching people proper scientific method (they never do enough replicates to really "confirm" or "bust" anything), but just getting the lay public more engaged and interested in science. Or, if nothing else, to inspire a healthy dose of skepticism about the many myths that abound, especially on the internet.

I had heard about the cannonball issue when it happened. The homeowner was quoted as saying something like it's pretty funny looking back after knowing nobody got hurt. I was actually a bit surprised they did something like that so close to a residential area. I was always under the impression they went to extreme measures on safety and made sure they had very large safety zones around them, knowing there were chances of missing targets, etc.

It is lucky nobody got hurt. Then again, I wish they'd hit the wall of my house...I have a remodeling project that I'd let them contract out to one of those extreme home makeover or Holmes on Homes type shows instead of calling the insurance carrier if they'd prefer. :D
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
Yeah, Irwin was crazier.

But you have to look at the logic being used here. If something goes wrong, where does the cannon ball go? "A residential area" is not the responsible answer.
This is true.

Did I ever tell you the story of my Dad getting hit in the belt buckle by a bullet?

The neighbors lived on the other side of about a quarter mile of pine woods. One evening they were shooting 22's at a target and decided the woods was the best backdrop for that. Somehow a round made it completely through without hitting one tree and socked my Dad in the belt buckle. A double freak.
 
  • #18
Anyone who says that they do not take safety into concern obviously does not watch the show very much. They usually have lawyers comb over their stunts and more than once they have had a test stopped by a phone call because it was reviewed to be too dangerous. Freak accidents do happen, and after 10 years on the air, and after seeing nearly every episode, I am very surprised that this one came so close.

So dismiss if you wish, but these guys have done more to promote proper scientific thinking than anyone on this forum (even if they do get it wrong sometimes).
 
  • #19
Chi Meson said:
Anyone who says that they do not take safety into concern obviously does not watch the show very much. They usually have lawyers comb over their stunts and more than once they have had a test stopped by a phone call because it was reviewed to be too dangerous. Freak accidents do happen, and after 10 years on the air, and after seeing nearly every episode, I am very surprised that this one came so close.

So dismiss if you wish, but these guys have done more to promote proper scientific thinking than anyone on this forum (even if they do get it wrong sometimes).

I don't think anyone said they didn't take safety into consideration; my point was that they took an unnecessary risk. This was completely avoidable. No doubt relocation to a safer location would have cost too much. After ten years, perhaps they are getting sloppy. Bottom line: A residential area was down range!

The last person I would ask about safety is a lawyer. If you want to know about safety, ask an engineer. If you want to know about liability you ask a lawyer.
 
  • #20
Chi Meson said:
So dismiss if you wish, but these guys have done more to promote proper scientific thinking than anyone on this forum (even if they do get it wrong sometimes).

This is not true. They promote pop science which is just garbage. People here do much better job (in terms of quality) than those Mythbusters.

I think they are neither much scientific nor crazy as people like Irwin. I tried to watch them once or twice but was put off by their excessive use of words and little actions :smile:.
 
  • #21
rootX said:
People here do much better job (in terms of quality) than those Mythbusters.
Yes they do. But people here don't have exposure to 10 million viewers now do they?
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
Yes they do. But people here don't have exposure to 10 million viewers now do they?

Only quality matters not quantity.
 
  • #23
rootX said:
Only quality matters not quantity.
If it reaches nobody then quality is irrelevant. (I've been talking about bringing it to the masses.)
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Discovery was quick to release a statement that Sgt. JD Nelson, public information officer and bomb technician for the Alameda County Sheriff’s office — who is a regular safety explosives expert for MythBusters – had been on site and all proper safety protocol was observed. Miraculously, no injuries were reported, and meetings are taking place to make sure the affected are taken care of and the show never experiences another accident as potentially grave as this one. But understandably, the residents are nervous about it happening again and not being as lucky. There’s been a “hint” of a lawsuit, the Chronicle reports.

Tory Belleci, Kari Byron and Grant Imahara, were calibrating a homemade cannon so it would match the power of a historical cannon. Hyneman, who along with Savage wasn’t present when the cannon was fired nearly 1,000 yards west of the home, told the San Francisco Chronicle the crew experienced “muzzle lift,” which sent the steel or cast iron ball sailing, bouncing on a driveway, through a home, across a multi-lane road, against the roof of a second home, and into a minivan.
http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/12/08/mythbusters-hosts-cannonball/
Nelson, who is also a consultant for the show, said producers have used the cannon that they built at the range more than 50 times without incident.

The cannonball was supposed to go through a few water-filled barrels and a concrete wall. Instead, it passed over the barrels, through the wall, and then took a “very unfortunate bounce that sent the ball skyward,” Nelson said.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/12/07/mythbusters-cannon/
 
  • #25
I confess I do not understand why they would be doing this up range of a populated area within firing range.

What were they thinking?
 
  • #26
DaveC426913 said:
I confess I do not understand why they would be doing this up range of a populated area within firing range.

What were they thinking?

I dunno.

Regardless, it's great no one got hurt. And, you can be 100% certain they're never, ever, ever going to make an error like this again.
 
  • #27
Moonbear said:
I actually really enjoy their show. It's not really about teaching people proper scientific method (they never do enough replicates to really "confirm" or "bust" anything), but just getting the lay public more engaged and interested in science. Or, if nothing else, to inspire a healthy dose of skepticism about the many myths that abound, especially on the internet.

...

I feel the same way.
 
  • #28
DaveC426913 said:
I confess I do not understand why they would be doing this up range of a populated area within firing range.

What were they thinking?

Hindsight is the only exact science known to man, but from what I've read here (I haven't seen the show) the populated area was NOT within firing range if they had aimed straight, and all their previous experience on the test range was that not aiming straight was not an issue.

I admit I take the "insiders view" on this. I don't stay awake at nights worrying that if something goes wrong with the stuff I do for a living, hundreds of innocent unsuspecting people might get killed. If and when that happens (and sometmes it does happen) we don't go into a group hug to make ourselves feel better, or take a year out for therapeutic stress counselling. We just get our heads down and figure out how to reduce the chance of it happening again...
 
  • #29
AlephZero said:
Hindsight is the only exact science known to man, but from what I've read here (I haven't seen the show) the populated area was NOT within firing range if they had aimed straight, and all their previous experience on the test range was that not aiming straight was not an issue.

Hindsight? It seems that - missing the target and looking at what's in range - is ballistics safety 101.

Somebody first figured out the you don't point the firing range on a military training ground at the CO's office, and just assume no one will ever miss the targets.
 
  • #30
Of COURSE there is an XKCD for this
unscientific.png


Anyone who has seen the episode where they showed the bullet fired from a handgun hitting the ground at the same time, in the same place, ans a dropped bullet will understand. Blowing things up is NOT the majority of what they do. Big explosions are more fun, and more memorable, and are "better TV," but the show is beyond that.

Not only do they stress the importance of data to support your conclusions, they are ingenious at building contraptions. I have been really impressed by some of the rigs they build to get data or to replicate a myth that a majority of people accept because of an email they receive.

As for safety, 'tis true, the lawyers, are all about not being sued, about not letting things like this happen. My point is that they are not yahoos on Youtube. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that this was a freak accident. I hope they get to keep their pants.