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.

  • #31
Mythbusters are an invented people. They lob missiles into San Francisco.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
The path of the http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/television/cannonball-mythbusters-show-crashes-calif-home-amp-lands-minivan-article-1.988169 was incredible.
It aimed the projectile at huge containers of water meant to absorb the impact on the grounds of the sheriff's bomb disposal range.

But the ball somehow missed its mark, took an unforeseen bounce off a safety berm and barreled into the quiet Tassajara Creek neighborhood of Dublin about 4 p.m. Tuesday.

That's where the projectile turned into a suburban pinball, bouncing off a sidewalk, blasting through a front door, barreling up some stairs and careening through a bedroom where a man, woman and child were reportedly sleeping.

The cannonball then punched through the home's exterior stucco wall, sailed across a six-lane thoroughfare, ricocheted off the roof of another home and finally crashed through the window of a parked, empty Toyota Sienna minivan, where it came to rest.
 
  • #33
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.

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...

A good part of my job involves anticipating the potential for death and injury. I'm not anti-Mythbusters, but this was a stupid mistake and seriously calls into question the competency of those planning their stunts.

I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't worry about these things [in a preventive sense]. As with people like the mythbusters, it is a part of the job.
 
  • #34
Chi Meson said:
...

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.

Well said.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
A good part of my job involves anticipating the potential for death and injury. I'm not anti-Mythbusters, but this was a stupid mistake and seriously calls into question the competency of those planning their stunts.

I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't worry about these things [in a preventive sense]. As with people like the mythbusters, it is a part of the job.

I'm not disagreeing that the placement was a bad idea, but it's tough (impossible) to catch everything. A major part of my job was the safety of others, both practically (preparing equipment to be worked on) and just talking about potential problems (process hazard analyses where you question every piece of equipment). It can be hard to question EVERYTHING. How far back do you go? If you need a firing range and find one available, do you automatically think to question it's validity? Most people will skip that step. "It's here, so it must be right." This tendency is exaggerated when put under pressure, say from time constraints. "We need to shoot this cannon. Well go get it done!" It's not an excuse, but a reality. Examining the event after the fact makes it seem much easier. You already have the problems in front of you.

Safety will always cycle. Regardless of who and what you have in place (I can only speculate on their personnel) there will be a certain amount of complacency. With great people, procedures, and redundancies it will typically take longer to happen, more precise failures in a sequence to occur, or be less severe. There will always be an event to put you back on track.
 
  • #36
Just read a comment following a news story:
House Busted. Myth Confirmed
heh heh...eh.