Mythbusters Accidentally Bust Windows In Nearby Town 500
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.'"
Re:That's odd... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on what you consider 'near'.
If normal precautions and notices take place, then all laws have been followed.
Accidents do happen, you need to calm down.
Re:downhill since Smash Lab (Score:3, Informative)
br/me want scottie back.
Re:Need-to-know attitude? Uh, no thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
You have the order wrong.
The shows popularity would have made people come too close so it wouldn't be possible to perform the explosion. They judged it safer for everyone if people didn't know about it.
Re:downhill since Smash Lab (Score:5, Informative)
Though I much prefer that cool blond girl they had on the show.
Re:Appropriately named Fire Chief... (Score:2, Informative)
Yolo == You Only Live Once
Re:Selective Terrorism? (Score:2, Informative)
Except the "couple of 'celebrities'" don't get their hands on it. It's usually a trained professional, like Frank Doyle. Considering he's retired from the FBI I'm sure he knows who to contact to let them know ahead of time if that sort of thing is required.
MythBusters isn't the safest show (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, they built the bulletproof shelter for explosions then in a much later episode discovered that the material wasn't bulletproof.
Re:Selective Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
They actually hire licensed munitions and demolitions experts for the blowing stuff up - Usually former FBI
Re:Not anticipated?? Hardly. (Score:5, Informative)
What, did EVERYONE (including Fire Marshall Bill) forget to bring their handy dandy bomb-squad approved $10 calculator with them that day?
I'm guessing they underestimated the burn rate of the explosives. This is probably due to the high variability in quality of ammonium nitrate. [wikipedia.org] They may have done the calculations for agricultural grade ammonium nitrate, and used another.
Re:NASA problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MythBusters isn't the safest show (Score:5, Informative)
No, they said the polycarbonate they used for a blast shelter was "basically bulletproof", which they later showed is an exaggeration.
OTOH, for what they were using it for, their polycarbonate blast shield was perfectly safe. It wouldn't stop a bullet, but it would stop any number of much slower moving objects.
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article lots of people were curious and wanted to know what was going on, but the only person who the article referred to who thought something was done wrong was someone who "was working at a local school". We don't know who this person was because the article gives their name, but doesn't say what they were doing at the school. Since their job title is not mentioned, it seems likely that they don't speak for the school. This means that those who do speak for the school apparently don't think there was anything wrong with what was done.
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/AlkaliBangs/ [theodoregray.com]
Cesium is more reactive, but it does not produce a spectacular explosion:
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? You didn't get it? Okay, he's just described a clear anecdote in which his teacher was demonstrably wrong in stating that K is significantly more reactive than Na. He followed this by stating that:
He's mocking the teacher's error by treating it as an overstatement of the facts, rather than a complete falsehood. It's the humour of subtle understatement. If subtlety isn't your thing, try sickipedia or 4chan.
When someone has been whooshed, make really sure you haven't missed the joke yourself before stating that there isn't one.
Christ, Samuel Clemens was right. It's like dissecting a frog.
Re:Not anticipated?? Hardly. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes.
It has to be combined with some type of fuel to explode.
Surprisingly, no. It will detonate all by itself with a big enough shock. This was discovered when a large amount (about a ton) got wet, and recrystalized into a large mass, and someone got the "safe" idea of just blasting it apart with dynamite. It was always "safe" before. There have been a number [wikipedia.org] of ammonium nitrate disasters.
One could be reasonably safe by simply transporting the oxidizer and the fuel separately.
True. Or even mixed, though this is obviously less safe. Ammonium nitrate is such a useful explosive precisely because it is so hard to set it off. But, with an appropriate blasting cap, and sensitizing with fuel (6% fuel oil by mass will do it, IIRC), it can be done. It will also undergo a DDT (deflagration to detonation transition) in a fire in an enclosed space.
Actually, the biggest risk is generally ensuring that one does set the charge off, and not merely disperse it over a large area.
Re:Not anticipated?? Hardly. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's odd... (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work as an explosives chemist- including once at one of the favorite facilities for Mythbusters- so maybe I can make a constructive comment or two.
Ammonium nitrate (AN) is used for stumping fields for a lot of reasons. First off, it's cheap. ANFO is just about as cheap as you can get in terms of "bang for your buck." When you're dropping iron bombs, cost isn't so much of a concern- even moreso with torpedos- so more expensive stuff is used for these applications.
Secondly, it's highly insensitive; ANFO either needs to be sensitized with other compounds (aluminum flake, for example), or a large booster has to be used in the firing train for it to be reliably detonated. Even then, most of the large shots I've been involved with used two independent firing trains, making a fizzle much less likely.
Thirdly, ANFO for stumping fields uses readily available components- a sack of AN (which, I note, can still be purchased locally- for now- with no special paperwork), and any one of a number of hydrocarbons like diesel. However, ANFO has a particular property that makes it amenable to stumping, which is that it provides less brisance- more "heave," and less "shatter." If you're moving rock, it's undesirable to move just a few hundred pounds that have been reduced to powder; normally you want to move a few thousand pounds that have been reduced to cobbles. It's the difference between being punched in the shoulder, and being shoved; given the same amount of energy, the effects will be dramatically different.
AN *can* be combined with other fuels to provide much greater brisance- anhydrous hydrazine comes to mind, but that's dangerous stuff even by the high standards held for explosives. Moreover, it's toxic and hard to store.
As an aside, it is disappointing to see Mythbusters using the "big shot in an open field" technique. They have a bigger budget, and should have gone somewhere that specializes in that sort of thing, like they have in the past. This obviously wasn't the right venue for a quarter ton ANFO shot. Noise abatement is a big part of dealing with energetic materials, and whomever they had on the job to make that assessment screwed up pretty badly.
For what it's worth... (Score:3, Informative)
At the "Mythbusters Live" event, one or the other of the guys claimed that Scottie left the show because while she liked the myth busting, she didn't like being on camera. The producers of the show really, wanted her to get more air-time (they know their audience, after all). She didn't like being pressured into being on-camera more, so she left.