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.'"
And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
boom goes the dynamite?
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
And here's the oblig XKCD showing you why. [xkcd.com]
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Think man!!
The real question is...could they do it again, but with Kari B. topless???
We need to see that in slow motion, high speed photography.
Myth... (Score:5, Funny)
Definitely busted.
Re:Myth... (Score:5, Funny)
A perfect way for the Large Hadron Collider guys to avoid the bad press and legal threats! Just call up the MythBusters and have them do it.
"In this episode we'll see if our particle accelerator creates world eating black holes!"
Re:Myth... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Boom! di ada...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
See the problem here is that you were doing this near Cincinnati OH. If you had been doing this at Burning Man, everyone for three miles would have come running, some of them already naked.
--The FNP
wow (Score:5, Funny)
The Myth Busters truly are gods among geeks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
You didn't a verb
Re:wow (Score:4, Funny)
I not!
Not anticipated?? Hardly. (Score:5, Interesting)
The keyword in the summary was "accidentally". This was not an intended result and was not anticipated. Especially not a mile away.
They were igniting 500 pounds of ammonium nitrate. What, did EVERYONE (including Fire Marshall Bill) forget to bring their handy dandy bomb-squad approved $10 calculator with them that day?
NASA problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NASA problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Funny)
"Were going to need a new Timmy!"
Re:NASA problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:5, Funny)
Wouldn't have been francium - that stuff's got such a short half life
Because it surrenders to the germanium?
and certainly not Americium (Score:5, Funny)
>>Wouldn't have been francium - that stuff's got such a short half life
>Because it surrenders to the germanium?
The sodium dunk game (Score:5, Funny)
My chem teacher
a: knew that potassium is *more* reactive than sodium, so used less of it
and
b: put the beaker full of water on the desk that the two cheerleaders in class sat at so when it went phooey they were the ones that ended up soaking wet.
He was a truly superior human being -- and he taught there his entire career, for 15 years after I graduated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:NASA problem (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.b3ta.com/questions/darwin/post368239 [b3ta.com]
Something similar here (Score:4, Funny)
Our chemistry teacher would have everyone as quietly as possible leave the room. Then he'd move the clock to 5pm. Then he'd leave and on the way out into the hall bang the door as loud as possible, waking the student up.
Good times. =)
Re:NASA problem (Score:5, Interesting)
In high school, I had a physics teacher who, way back when he first started teaching, ordered x picograms of radioactive material for his class. The school secretary thought he misspelled the order and changed it to grams.
He said later on the principal called him over the intercom and sounded really upset. He went to the office, only to find the principal steaming mad over a $50,000.00-plus invoice. He looked at the invoice and, realizing what it was, went and got his giger counter...only to find it going crazy even out in the hall from the principal's office.
As it turned out, they had shipped a large order of radioactive material in a cardboard box!
They had to evacuate the office and call someone to come and get it.
Possibly unrelated, because that had happened many years prior, but he died of cancer.
transporter_ii
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What happened to the egregiously mistaken secretary?
The Science Teacher Who Cleaned The Chem Closet... (Score:5, Interesting)
He called up the local police department to talk to someone who does hazmat / dangerous chemicals work. The moment he said, "crystallized picric acid," the man on the other end of the phone shouted, "Evacuate the building now!"
The full bomb squad arrived and took the beaker carefully up the hill to the 50-yard line of the football stadium and detonated the beaker. The shockwave went clear across the town.
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:Not anticipated?? Hardly. (Score:5, Funny)
They were igniting 500 pounds of ammonium nitrate
[humor]
I hereby declare this an act of domestic terrorism. The fact this wasn't in the middle of a public square just means they were bad at planning.
[/humor]
Re: (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 th
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Relying on luck is a sure sign of stupidity. I've thought for a while that stupid was a key ingredient in the Mythbusters 'experiments'. Something tells me the luck will run out before the stupid does.
Yes, this is evolution at work.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, do you have anything better to do than whinge? It doesn't appear like it.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
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!
They didn't expect it either. They did not think there was a safety issue, thus they did not warn about the safety issue they did not think existed. If they had thought there was a safety issue warranting warnings, they would have issued safety issue warnings. They had firemen on hand for the safety issues they did expect. They did not have firemen on hand for the issues they did not expect.
What I'm saying is that it was unexpected.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
Because nobody expects the Spanish In...
Oh no...
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: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:MythBusters isn't the safest show (Score:4, Interesting)
and the steam cannon - they wanted to get it up to 200PSI, but time conspired against them and it only got to 65PSI. The cannonball travelled a mile, it might well have hit the San Francisco suburbs if they'd tripled the PSI..!
and the chicken cannon firing at non-birdstrike approved windshields.
We all make miscalculations!
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had thought there was a safety issue warranting warnings...
they would have done the experiment somewhere else.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
If they were real scientists it would make a very boring show. I know I don't want to watch a show of a bunch of grad students in dimly lit offices using MatLab and Excel, while the researcher eats lobster dinners trying to score just one more grant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. :)
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
I shouldn't be notified that my windows may explode unexpectedly?
You want to be notified of everything that may happen unexpectedly? Seriously? Because then we're going to be here a while...
Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)
having been a pyrotechnician for 15 years, I can say that many of the "broken" window claims probably were for windows cracked long ago. But hey, there's a boom, so I can get free window replacement!
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that was quite unexpected
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
People can't notify you of unexpected things.
Proof that you're wrong: Your mom and I had a great time last night.
Proof that I'm right: that's not unexpected.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
What were they thinking?
"This is gonna be awesome!!!"
Just a hunch...
it had to happen sooner or later..... (Score:4, Funny)
.... can't wait to see this one air. I wonder what odds Adam gave of shattering windows a mile away from the blast site?
Re:it had to happen sooner or later..... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, I see our viral marketing campaign is working... Jamie, go "accidentally" blow up a gas station or something, we'll issue a press rele^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hletter of apology next week.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I wake up to a giant ball of fire on the horizon every morning.
Only the Mythbusters... (Score:5, Insightful)
...could get the go-ahead on tripping 500 lbs of ammonium nitrate in order to "knock the socks off" of a mannequin.
Appropriately named Fire Chief... (Score:5, Funny)
"Chief Barry Burns, of Esparto Fire Department" :-)
Bleeped (Score:5, Insightful)
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'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You never saw Mr. Wizard bleeping out the chemical names on his demonstrations.
True, but when did Mr. Wizard use [bleep]ing Thermite?
Re:Bleeped (Score:5, Insightful)
Thermite is a perfect example. It's easy to make, the ingredients are dirt cheap and unregulated, and it takes no special knowledge to put it together.
Why bleep out the words "Aluminum" and "Iron Oxide"? If someone wants to learn how to make thermite, they can do that without any special help.
The nastiest stuff they use on mythbusters is all commercial. The stuff they make themselves is mostly kitchen sink stuff that anyone could make.
Re:Bleeped (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bleep out the words "Aluminum" and "Iron Oxide"?
Defense Lawyer: And where did you learn to make Thermite?
Defendent: From watching Mythbusters.
Discovery Channel: Uh-oh.
Re:Bleeped (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's funny that they bleeped it out in that episode. They even blurred the label of one of the containers of chemicals they used for it. IAAC so I pretty much guessed what they were using just by seeing it. Did a quick google search after the episode and confirmed it. I find it rather stupid that they feel the need to bleep and blur when a few milliseconds online can find the details anyways. Knowing how to break the law is not the same as actually breaking the law.
I also was meandering through our chemical storage (I work for a college) just to see if we even had the ingredients for thermite. We did (not that surprising really), but what I did find interesting/surprising was that on our shelf of old chemicals that aren't used in classes anymore was a big jar of thermite and thermite activator.
Re:Bleeped (Score:5, Insightful)
Note the past tense. Is Mr. Wizard even allowed to be shown now? Have the networks been 'encouraged' to drop programming like that?
Now please excuse me while I test whether an explosion can literally knock my tinfoil hat off.
Re:Bleeped (Score:5, Funny)
I swear that if the lawyers had their way, they would bleep 'bleep'.
I don't get it.
Re:Bleeped (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the point about censoring the location where you are firing off a minigun?
I always assumed that they censored that particular nugget because they film in the People's Republic of^W^W^W California, which isn't exactly a pro-firearms state. I know they had to get special permission when they were playing around with the .50 rifle during the bullets fired at water episode. I also seem to recall the neighbors of M5 whining when they were doing some other gun myths.
I do agree though that some of the stuff they censor is just plain stupid. I would guess that the lawyers make them do it.
downhill since Smash Lab (Score:5, Funny)
Ever since these other "lets blow stuff up on high speed film" shows came out, MythBusters has had to blow more and more stuff up, kind of getting anti-intellectual nowadays. Plus Kari needs a bigger rack.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
br/me want scottie back.
Re:downhill since Smash Lab (Score:5, Informative)
Though I much prefer that cool blond girl they had on the show.
Re:downhill since Smash Lab (Score:4, Funny)
The verdict (Score:5, Funny)
BUSTED!!
Selective Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...They were trying to literally 'knock the socks off' a mannequin by igniting 500 pounds of ammonium nitrate."
Uh, I like the show and all, but it's rather ironic that a couple of "celebrities" can get their hands on 500 pounds of this stuff and use it, when Average Joe can't manage to buy 50 pounds of "enriched" manure from Home Depot without tripping the "terrorist" flag at Homeland Security...
Re:Selective Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
They actually hire licensed munitions and demolitions experts for the blowing stuff up - Usually former FBI
Myth: Plausible (Score:5, Funny)
Windows: Busted
That oughta do it. (Score:5, Funny)
Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Funny)
Damn you, I wanted to be the first to post that.
The perfect comment, and it is only +2 Funny, right now.
Jamie wants big boom! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oops. Oh well. (Score:4, Interesting)
RTFA: They were trying to literally "knock the socks off" Buster by igniting 500 pounds of NH4NO3
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:That's odd... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool. That's what it is.
Re:That's odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wasn't gone. Just more finely (and widely) distributed. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I presume they were using oil with that ammonium nitrate. IIRC this is the preferred recipe for lifting stumps &c. as it pushes more volume/pressure than TNT or what-have-you. A little calculation might have suggested the advisability of doing it a little further from town. This may be a bit bigger @ 500# than their previous endeavors. Sounds like fun was had.
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.
Re:That's odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo [wikipedia.org]
Re:That's odd... (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait until MythBusters start busting nuclear weapon myths! Oohh boy! :D
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: (Score:3)
Re:the explosion was alot bigger (Score:5, Funny)
They usually have a retired FBI agent who is a specialist in explosives handle the big booms for them. I wonder if they had him along this time too?
Now we know why he's retired ;)