30 ms·

Mythbusters experiment goes awry, sends cannonball through two houses

496 points by viggity 15y ago

viggity 15y ago
Watch the video, it is surreal. Now the show is probably going to suck because their insurance won't let them do anything remotely interesting with explosives.
- TillE 15y ago
  Maybe they'll have to actually focus on doing interesting things without explosives. My interest in Mythbusters faded as their excuses for blowing stuff up every week became increasingly absurd and pointless.
  - RodgerTheGreat 15y ago
    I agree. The earlier, lower-budget seasons of the show lead to some really clever solutions for testing things that would be unfeasible to try at full-scale. Now if they want to melt a semi truck with thermite they just buy one and do it. The target audience has really shifted.
    - parfe 15y ago
      Yeah, all those dumb people watching, am I right?
    - dholowiski 15y ago
      My favorite part about the early mythbusters wasn't the science - it was the thrill of the build. To watch them having to build some weird thing, working through the possibilities, dealing with problems etc. Like the one where they tested if you could get electrocuted through an appliance in a lightning storm... they actually spent time troubleshooting the wiring in the house, and explained the problem. Now all you get is a 30 second montage before they start blowing crap up.
      - e1ven 15y ago
        Absolutely! I hadn't heard it articulated as cleanly, but the "Thrill of the build" is exactly what attracted me to the show. I enjoyed watching them try to come up with "How in the heck are we going to make this thing", along with calling car-lots, and the other stuff that they have the budget to avoid, or the producers do off-scene. It reminded me a lot of Junkyard wars, when I first started watching it, but more authentic, since they weren't using a stocked field ;) Stuck with Hackett still has a building things aesthetic, but it hasn't quite clicked with me.
  - kahawe 15y ago
    > My interest in Mythbusters faded as their excuses for blowing stuff up every week became increasingly absurd and pointless. And the Obama episode? Really, the best they could think of was Archimedes death ray because it wasnt "tested thoroughly enough"??? Come on......
    - fbomb 15y ago
      I think Obama was looking for a way to cut the defense budget.
      - kahawe 15y ago
        Cheese, frozen chicken, truck with window-blades, laptop battery and phonebook armor, mixing some MOO with MEOW, snow plow rocket sleds and the list goes on and on about things with at least potential military use - heck, even white mice in case Hannibal comes around again. That death ray was less lethal and less effective (and less spectacular) than all of those. I just don't see it.
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    I have observed this also. Right now I can predict that any episode will have two "myths" that are bound to be either about explosions, cars or alcohol, with the possibility of mixins. The myths are gone, all that's left are busters, or rather blasters.
    - michaelfeathers 15y ago
      Next week they are going to test the myth that the show can't jump over an exploding shark.
  - ugh 15y ago
    I’m not sure whether they really are blowing up more stuff? Maybe someone should check that myth? There were some really awful myths this year (I hated the Green Hornet show and that other show where they promoted some other stupid show on the Discovery Channel, also the Obama episode) but recent episodes have been pretty good and my subjective impression is that they have done a lot of low key myths in a big way. Also, the myths that are actually about explosions have become more sophisticated.
- atourgates 15y ago
  Well - the obvious solution is to just move the explosives testing to a more remote location. I drove past the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center outside of 29 Palms a few months ago. You could shoot a cannon ball several miles in any direction out there without hitting anything of value. The same is true for Fort Irwin just north of there, or the Naval Weapons Center China Lake just off the 395 on the way up to Mammoth. Of course, all those pale in comparison to the vast emptyness of the 1,300+ square mile Nevada Test Range. If it's good enough to test Nuclear armaments, it's probably good enough to handle the occasional wayward cannonball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site Sure, none of these are as convenient to Mythbuster's HQ - but I'm sure they can fit it in their travel budget - and if one of their experiments went wayward and actually killed someone, I'm sure it'd be the end of the show.
dholowiski 15y ago
Has anybody noticed that mythubsters experiments seem to be getting more daring and un-necessarily dangerous? For me it started with the 'curving bullet' myth, that just didn't seem to have the necessary safety controls. Since then I've seen many myths that could have easily ended in disaster, had one simple thing gone wrong. There's a lot to be said for teaching experimentation and the scientific method, but I'm worried they're teaching a whole generation of kids that science is inherently dangerous.
- ryandvm 15y ago
  Actually, the problem I had with that episode was that they were mythbusting Newton's first law of motion.
  - dholowiski 15y ago
    Sure, it was a pretty dumb myth that they were testing and it didn't make for a great episode, i just still can't believe they didn't end up shooting someone.
    - yock 15y ago
      Don't forget too that Kari was pregnant. Calling those sequences poorly considered is an understatement.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Meh, they've tested Newton's laws numerous times. If everybody knew them, both intellectually and in their bones, they wouldn't have the myths to test, but alas, I don't think you can claim with a straight face that we live in a society with universal knowledge and deep understanding of Newton's laws. ... and if you think you do, spend some time on the much-referenced "fan site". And furthermore, there is nothing unscientific or wrong about testing our most well-tested theories. The entire point of science is that even then, the theories will still work, not that you should never test them again. I'd also further observe that for all the drama happening here, those swinging gun sequences aren't that unsafe. It may look unsafe but the actual set of things that can plausibly go wrong was less than your intuition may be claiming. It's not like there was a way they were going to shoot themselves with a particularly higher probability than usual. (And remember that if you start constructing far-out implausible scenarios under which that might happen you must be willing to worry about equally improbably things all the time; one rapidly gets to the point where things like simply driving to work must be considered too unsafe to do if one starts spending too much improbability on the constructed scenario.)
ryandvm 15y ago
I don't believe it. If only there was a group of people that could test the plausibility of this story...
- mcantor 15y ago
  Apropos: http://xkcd.com/250/ http://xkcd.com/250/
  - ufo 15y ago
    I can assert this comic has a very appropriate alt-text
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
sebbi 15y ago
Are all houses in the US build from paper walls? No wonder they can not withstand tornados or other desasters ... Hmm ... now i want to the see the actual episode ;-)
darklajid 15y ago
Hmm.. Would have liked to see more details about the accident itself. The cannonball was cast iron? Any estimation about speed and weight? Actually the biggest surprise were the walls of the house shown (mostly the exterior wall): Is this a brick and mortar house/wall? Or is this wood/insulation mostly? Edit: In fullscreen that looks to be a wall made of concrete, with a network of iron/steel to support it? Even if it's a ~thin~ wall by some standards, this is a lot stronger than I initially guessed.
- luastoned 15y ago
  Just wood and insulation.
- viggity 15y ago
  The video said the cannon ball was the size of a softball.
- fr0sty 15y ago
  The house has a stucco exterior. Rigid foam insulation clad with a metal mesh covered with a thin layer of what is basically concrete.
- unwind 15y ago
  If it was a regulation-size softball made of average-density grey iron, I get 103.9 kg for the mass.
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    I get about 4 kg. (It appears you may have used the 12 inch circumference from your softball regulations as the radius of the ball)
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - cbr 15y ago
    You might want to practice comparing results of calculations you make to what seems intuitively likely. I think you would find it's a very helpful in catching errors.
reader5000 15y ago
Wow, lawsuit city. Hell, possibly criminal charges. This may spell the end of the show.
- xd 15y ago
  Lawsuit city for sure. But criminal charges are unlikely as the bomb range personnel would be responsible, surely?
- Tloewald 15y ago
  They're ok as long as they didn't violate any touch-related patents or build anything in the shape of a rounded rectangle. I'm worried you're right, but if it makes the show less obsessed with explosives that would be ok.
- e1ven 15y ago
  I think you make things seem bigger than they are. This isn't even their first, or largest accident- http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html Yes, it's embarrassing, and they're lucky no one was hurt. But since no one WAS it, and it's just property damage, that's what insurance companies are for. The insurance company will probably crack down a bit, but they probably need a bit of that.
  - cbr 15y ago
    I think this counts as a larger accident. The one you link involved a "handful" of broken windows. This is a similar amount of property damage but came much closer to actually killing someone.
- lambda 15y ago
  Criminal charges are incredibly unlikely. This was a freak accident, in which they took plenty of safety precautions, but somehow managed to have an accident anyhow. They didn't actually hurt anybody. There are no real criminal charges that could be brought against them. And it will only be lawsuit city of Discovery Channel doesn't offer an appropriate settlement. I'm sure that Discovery Channel has plenty good insurance, and plenty of cash on hand, and will over to cover the costs of the damages to those involved, plus a little extra to keep them happy. There will only be lawsuits if they don't offer a reasonable settlement, which I would find unlikely.
ajays 15y ago
As I was reading that story, the sequence at the beginning of each episode was flashing through my mind, in Adam's voice: "do not try this at home. We are, what you call, professionals"... // yeah, I know, mistakes happen.
- donw 15y ago
  "Do not try this at home. Instead, let us try this at your home." Or, "We've got years of experience that keeps us safe. You, on the other hand, not so much."
signa11 15y ago
i hope that they don't get judged too harshly for this unfortunate incident. it is a nice and fun program to watch, and would be a real shame if it got canned...
- runako 15y ago
  It's just a TV show. They really could have killed people in their own home with this stunt. If they can't do it safely, it's not worth the entertainment value. (And I say that as a fan of the show.)
- johanbev 15y ago
  I hope they are judged harshly for this incident. If they are blasting cannon balls through peoples houses and cars they have no control of what they are doing. Sending balls of cast iron through habitated areas cannot be dismissed as an "unfortunate incident". In my country (Norway) you'd immediately get arrested and charged if you fired a live cannon outside a big millitary shooting range. I certainly hope that their celebrity status won't impede justice in this case.
  - sp332 15y ago
    They are at a firing range, it says right in the article "Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation". Apparently the cannonball hit one or two hills before entering the town. They weren't even firing in the direction of the town.
    - johanbev 15y ago
      Apparently not big enough then. This was a lucky case. Wern't and apparently couldn't have undone any bodily harm that was caused. If they indeed were several kilometers from anyone else, then they have miscalculated the ballistic trajectores so gravely that it's completely mindboggling to think of how these guys were allowed to play with explosives in the first place. While I do like some of the MB Episodes, I'm not a fan of blowing up things with oversized explosions in general. Please note that explosives are dangerous. Leave it to professional use. Playing with fire will eventually get you burnt. Accidents do happen, no one is infallible, but one should really go to the utmost of efforts when it comes to blowing stuff up or launching heavy projectiles into the air at great speed. At least if accidents happen because explosives were used for something useful, say, construction, then one could at least think that the damage or bodily harm was for a greater good, even though that is by all means a meagre comfort. However, when these sort of things happen for the entertainment (and the profits of the show, mind you!) of others, then something is really really wrong.
xd 15y ago
Reminds me of the convertible car mishap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy872Fb1ad8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy872Fb1ad8
ck2 15y ago
While I guess explosions sell to a certain crowd, I am more fond of the useful things they do like prove MPG increases with just 5psi more to the tires and how to get out of a car that has been submerged. Guess that isn't "sexy" enough for some. I'm curious if the day they do finally kill or seriously injure someone if the show will be retired. Not wishing for it, just wondering if that's the right thing to do.
TamDenholm 15y ago
One mishap in eight years* is a very good record, the Mythbusters put a LOT of time and energy into safety and it was clearly an accident, they obviously weren't being reckless. I dont have any firm numbers but i'm pretty sure that more space debris and meteorites fall from space every year than mishaps from Mythbusters. * I've no idea if there have been any more serious accidents, but this seems to have been the first since the news story didnt mention precedent.
- lucisferre 15y ago
  "I don't have any firm numbers" followed by "I'm pretty sure". Sounds like the beginning of a myth.
  - pjin 15y ago
    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=188105 http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=188105 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/did-a-meteor-bring-down-air-france-447/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/... A direct comparison may be misleading b/c since you could model meteorite impacts with a probability distribution over latitude/longitude, whereas Mythbusters presumably uses the same testing site(s). Also note that the Google answer's 3 cases of meteors causing injury or damaging property all lie in the US.
- dholowiski 15y ago
  Definitely more than one mishap. Many of their mishaps make it on to the show, even. This is possibly the most significant mishap, but not the first.
- noodle 15y ago
  they've had mishaps, but none that seriously endangered general public quite like this one, afaik. example: http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
latch 15y ago
Local news coverage with good details of the damage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-CErr0VOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-CErr0VOY
Splines 15y ago
I really hope they share what went wrong. When they deal with explosives they usually (always?) have an expert on hand to ensure things are done right, so it'll be interesting to see a post-mortem.
garyrichardson 15y ago
Wow, watching that news clip reminds me about why I never watch the news. So much bias and unneeded anger. There's no explanation as to why the canon ball missed. There's also no mention of the fact that: a) the had firing experts on hand b) the fire/police departments were notified ahead of time and probably had someone on site. They also probably had veto power and input on how it was staged. (* I don't know this for a fact. I'm basing this on every other Mythbusters episode I've ever seen) My favorite line: "his elderly mother thought the sky was falling." Makes her sound like a simple nutcase. The son then says, "Yeah, she thought it might be a tree falling on the house or a meteorite." A few months ago my brother and some friends went on an epic multiday hike. The previous year, someone attempted it and was never seen again. They were all experienced and were very prepared. In the end they found themselves in a situation where they had to have search and rescue pull them out -- going forward or back wasn't an option. They had a locator beacon (part of being prepared) and decided to pull it. The other option was to head back, miss their return date and have S&R come looking for them anyway. The local news portrayed them as inexperienced idiots who were totally unprepared. They misinterpreted or manipulated quotes. They didn't actually understand anything -- just regurgitated facts with their uneducated and biased tones and extrapolations. In conclusion, TV news should be ended in all forms. Reporters aren't experts in the subject matter they report. Even though they should be trained to know better, modern news programs make no effort to disguise their bias.
- endersshadow 15y ago
  I think you're confusing "bias" with "sensationalism." TV journalists (especially of the local variety) look to sensationalize every piece of news that they can. This is due to a whole host of factors--not the least being plummeting local news ratings. But most importantly, I want to touch on the following point: "Reporters aren't experts in the subject matter they report." Of course they're not! Journalism itself is not something that everybody can do. The problem you're citing is not because journalists aren't experts in whatever they're reporting (which is a ludicrous notion--news spans so many different subject areas that it would be nigh impossible to house an expert reporter on every subject). The problem is driven by falling ratings and a need for more gripping and sensational stories. Years ago, Ellen DeGeneres even had the joke that she was eating dinner and the local news came on to say, "What you're eating right now can kill you. Film at eleven."
noblethrasher 15y ago
"Instead the cannonball flew over the foothills surrounding Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation, before spiraling back toward Dublin like a cruise missile." Wouldn't it be more like a ballistic missile?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Cruise missile sounds more sensational to the average Joe. Now they could have said "like a nuclear warhead" or a "dirty bomb" to invoke that easily accessible pre-programmed fear of terrorism as well. Also I think they should emphasize the word "blasted" more times. I feel 4 times wasn't enough. Maybe another 12 times would really demonstrate how dangerous science can be.
- freehunter 15y ago
  That quote made it seem like the ball changed course. "Spiraling back toward Dublin". I'm not a cannonball expert, but wouldn't it just be "heading toward Dublin"? "Spiraling back" makes it sound like it turned around and went the other way.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    projectiles in flight actually do some surprising things -curving or literally spiraling through the air are just some of them. I have no idea what this thing was doing, but at speed and with spin, weird things happen.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      I could see it spiraling or even curving, but it still seems highly unlikely that it would turn around 180, pass by a point where it previously flew over, and cause that much damage after passing through a concrete wall. "back towards" implies just that.
ward 15y ago
I could be wrong on this, but aren't a lot of houses in America made from softer material than stone bricks? Something like gyproc comes to mind. I have to admit, the only reason I think this is because of seeing an episode of that awful house makeover show[1]. I believe the walls they used there were all wood/something similar. 1: Extreme makeover, house edition
- HeXetic 15y ago
  Gpyroc is drywall, and that is used for interior walls, not exterior walls. Most (non-mobile) homes in the US & Canada are either brick veneer over wooden frame, or double-brick construction where the bricks bear the structural weight to the foundation.
- fr0sty 15y ago
  Some home exteriors are made with brick or concrete blocks but a large number (I can't quote a percentage) of American homes are built entirely from lumber. Current construction usually involves sheathing the outside of the house with plywood sheets and covering the sheets with vinyl siding. Interior walls are generally covered in drywall (also called "sheetrock" or gypsum board) Where are you from and what are homes built with there?
  - ugh 15y ago
    Most family homes I know in Germany are plastered brick houses†. Both exterior as well as interior walls are constructed using (different kinds of) bricks. Wooden constructions are definitely very rare and more a fashion thing than anything else – definitely not a default choice. — † With those bricks: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Lochziegel.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Lochziegel.j...
  - ward 15y ago
    I'm from Belgium, I don't know any house that doesn't use bricks/cement/other form of stone material. Maybe sometimes something softer on interior walls, but even there it's mostly stone. I assume we don't go for the easier-to-rebuild because we don't have any strong types of nature force affecting us. There's no earthquakes, tropical storms, tornados etc here. Our summers are "cool" (going over 30C is pretty rare), our winters are "warm" (5 cm snow already feels like a lot to me). In short, we have a pretty moderate climate. Edit: Pretty much the same as ugh[1] said in the other comment. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324587 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324587
grannyg00se 15y ago
Those involved must've felt horrible when they realized that the projectile was going to miss the hillside and go into residential territory. So glad nobody got hurt.
orenmazor 15y ago
unfortunate, but I bet they have a lot of data now!
christo16 15y ago
This is crazy, happened only a couple miles away from my house...
surlyadopter 15y ago
Just yesterday Kari (one of the Mythbusters) posted pictures on twitter of her standing next to the cannon. They appear to have been removed now though. This isn't the first time one of their tests has accidentally damaged property, there was an explosion a year ago in a lake bed that was stronger than expected that ended up blowing windows in a nearby town.
DanielStraight 15y ago
A general reply to everyone saying this was unacceptable or that insufficient precautions were taken: This experiment was performed at a facility designed for such experiments under the supervision of people who are trained to handle such experiments. The result, while upsetting, was a freak accident. It could not realistically have been predicted. It is not necessarily anyone's fault, even if human error played a role. Life is risky. Sometimes surgeons slip and kill patients. Sometimes food producers slip and ship contaminated products which kill people. Sometimes parents turn around for 1 second and their kids drown. All of these are caused by human error, but there has to be a point where you can say that reasonable precaution was taken so no blame is warranted. Because the alternative, only doing things that are 100% certain to be safe, means never doing anything at all. There is no way to guarantee 100% safety. The building you are sitting in has been checked for safety. But something could have been missed, leading it to spontaneously collapse. And here is the most important point of this entire post: This will be true regardless how thoroughly you check the building.
- maxerickson 15y ago
  Can you expand on what "facility designed for such experiments" means? Is it licensed in a certain way, or are all firing ranges used by the military reasonable to use for cannons, or what?
  - Skroob 15y ago
    If it's where they do most of their explosives testing, it's the county sheriff's bomb range.
- extension 15y ago
  Human errors will proliferate until they run up against consequences. That is why there must always be consequences.
  - timwiseman 15y ago
    This is true to a degree, and I think few would argue against it. The question is, what is the right amount of consequences? Should the party at fault have to pay exactly the damages actually caused to make those injured whole (in other words, actual damages?) Should the party pay a portion of the damages caused so as to partially compensate others while not being ruinous to a party that behaved with reasonable, but insufficient, precautions (a large part of the justification for "proximate cause "is to achieve this, see for isntance "Wagon Mound (No. 1)" and "Wagon Mount (No. 2)", and contributory negligence also plays a similar role)? Or should the party at fault pay far more than damage caused to discourage improper behaviour (in other words, punitive damages)? These are decisions best made on a case by case basis, but the doctrines we lay out for deciding which case falls where affect how willing to take or not takes risks a society becomes. And most of the biggest advancements in human society came through enormous risk, so I for one think we should not encourage society to be too risk adverse. Here, I think the grandparent post makes a good argument that there should be consequences, but they should be exactly actual damages and nothing more.
snorkel 15y ago
So Confirmed, Plausible, or Busted?
bborud 15y ago
I hope Jamie's walrus moustache is okay.
panzagl 15y ago
The real question is why were the houses built so close to the firing range, not why was this experiment done in a residential area. I'd be willing to bet money that the base was there first.
Gustomaximus 15y ago
What I want to know; - Will they air this, please do. - Can Jasper (the minivan owner) keep the cannon ball.
mjgm 15y ago
No one got hurt, and I'm sure they were careful. It's something they are always very clear about on the show... but eh someone/people genuinely could have been killed... so not quite all precautions were taken. Also how amazing is it that the canonball burst through a front door and then went UP the stairs and out the back through the wall on the second floor?! Seriously. I didn't know canon balls would bounce/ react in that way... Kinda reminds me why I love Mythbusters...
knightgj 15y ago
Here in UT they use a couple 1960s-era Howitzers for avalanche control in Little Cottonwood Canyon. They once loaded a shell with too much gunpowder and left a crater in someone's back yard 10-15 miles away.
dnaquin 15y ago
sounds like at least one of these was broken. "ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use."
tlrobinson 15y ago
I'm looking forward to the Mythbusters episode where they bust/confirm the myth about a cannonball flying through two homes and a minivan.
jasonkolb 15y ago
Wow, what a great story! Although, I kind of doubt they'll be able to continue using that air base. I hope they team up with Survivorman to do some really wild stuff in remote wildernesses. The thought of a Survivorman/Mythbusters series makes me giddy.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  This didn't happen at the air base, it happened on a firing range.
akavlie 15y ago
The physics at play here (at least as reported in the article) are hard to fathom. It went through the front door, bounced around the home, UP to the second floor, THROUGH the back wall... And enough energy still remained to send it across a road 50 yards, UP again to a roof, and finally smashing through a van window. I wish they could have captured this with high-speed cameras from multiple angles, like they do with experiments that go as planned.
- JeffL 15y ago
  I'm guessing that the reporter completely made up the "bounced around" bit to make it sound more sensational. Seems more likely to have entered the front door at an upward angle, sailed through the house and out the back and across the street.
  - akavlie 15y ago
    That makes sense. Still incredible that it had so much energy that it was still going after making it through a door and a wall. It's also surprising that it could bounce so high (at least once) after hitting a floor.
    - bh42222 15y ago
      That makes sense. Still incredible that it had so much energy that it was still going after making it through a door and a wall. Keep in mind these are American houses, flimsy paper cardboard and this bits of wood things.
      - enneff 15y ago
        Their Americanness has little to do with their build quality. The climate in California likely does. Been to places in the USA where it actually gets cold? The houses are way more sturdy there because they need to be.
        rdouble 15y ago
mkramlich 15y ago
Mental note: don't live near firing range.
frankus 15y ago
Love how the page reloads halfway through the video (no doubt in a lame attempt to get more ad impressions), and how I then get to sit through another 30 second ad before watching a two -minute news clip.
christo16 15y ago
Here is an official statement from the city http://www.dublin.ca.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=351 http://www.dublin.ca.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=351
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
fecklessyouth 15y ago
Honestly, HN? I clicked "comments" expecting to see a bunch of insight and analysis on the physics involved, and instead it's just a bunch of rage against local news stations because the station committed the unforgivable sin of making the beloved Mythbusters look bad.
D_Drake 15y ago
I'm disappointed. Hyneman especially should have recognized the danger of combining energy levels like those with the elastic properties of a cast iron ball. If the firing range was within five miles of inhabited area, stone canonballs should be used. They've obeyed this rule in the past.
daemin 15y ago
It certainly goes to show how lethal these weapons were, through two houses, bounced a few times, and even into a mini van. They would have been monstorously lethal on the battlefield, just imagine ranks of soldiers rather than a house.
foxhop 15y ago
The hosts don't "creatively try to prove things true or false". They use science.
ektimo 15y ago
"Incredibly, no one was injured in the mishap." It's not incredible. Most space isn't filled with people.
forcefsck 15y ago
When you're playing with guns, eventually an accident will happen, no matter how careful you are.
bluesmoon 15y ago
The story page is now a 404, looks like they pulled it
- pud 15y ago
  Found it: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes...
b2spirit 15y ago
Did the canonball also go through cbslocal's server room? That page cannot be found.

496 points by viggity 15y ago

Watch the video, it is surreal. Now the show is probably going to suck because their insurance won't let them do anything remotely interesting with explosives.

TillE 15y ago
Maybe they'll have to actually focus on doing interesting things without explosives. My interest in Mythbusters faded as their excuses for blowing stuff up every week became increasingly absurd and pointless.
- RodgerTheGreat 15y ago
  I agree. The earlier, lower-budget seasons of the show lead to some really clever solutions for testing things that would be unfeasible to try at full-scale. Now if they want to melt a semi truck with thermite they just buy one and do it. The target audience has really shifted.
  - parfe 15y ago
    Yeah, all those dumb people watching, am I right?
  - dholowiski 15y ago
    My favorite part about the early mythbusters wasn't the science - it was the thrill of the build. To watch them having to build some weird thing, working through the possibilities, dealing with problems etc. Like the one where they tested if you could get electrocuted through an appliance in a lightning storm... they actually spent time troubleshooting the wiring in the house, and explained the problem. Now all you get is a 30 second montage before they start blowing crap up.
    - e1ven 15y ago
      Absolutely! I hadn't heard it articulated as cleanly, but the "Thrill of the build" is exactly what attracted me to the show. I enjoyed watching them try to come up with "How in the heck are we going to make this thing", along with calling car-lots, and the other stuff that they have the budget to avoid, or the producers do off-scene. It reminded me a lot of Junkyard wars, when I first started watching it, but more authentic, since they weren't using a stocked field ;) Stuck with Hackett still has a building things aesthetic, but it hasn't quite clicked with me.
- kahawe 15y ago
  > My interest in Mythbusters faded as their excuses for blowing stuff up every week became increasingly absurd and pointless. And the Obama episode? Really, the best they could think of was Archimedes death ray because it wasnt "tested thoroughly enough"??? Come on......
  - fbomb 15y ago
    I think Obama was looking for a way to cut the defense budget.
    - kahawe 15y ago
      Cheese, frozen chicken, truck with window-blades, laptop battery and phonebook armor, mixing some MOO with MEOW, snow plow rocket sleds and the list goes on and on about things with at least potential military use - heck, even white mice in case Hannibal comes around again. That death ray was less lethal and less effective (and less spectacular) than all of those. I just don't see it.
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  I have observed this also. Right now I can predict that any episode will have two "myths" that are bound to be either about explosions, cars or alcohol, with the possibility of mixins. The myths are gone, all that's left are busters, or rather blasters.
  - michaelfeathers 15y ago
    Next week they are going to test the myth that the show can't jump over an exploding shark.
- ugh 15y ago
  I’m not sure whether they really are blowing up more stuff? Maybe someone should check that myth? There were some really awful myths this year (I hated the Green Hornet show and that other show where they promoted some other stupid show on the Discovery Channel, also the Obama episode) but recent episodes have been pretty good and my subjective impression is that they have done a lot of low key myths in a big way. Also, the myths that are actually about explosions have become more sophisticated.
atourgates 15y ago
Well - the obvious solution is to just move the explosives testing to a more remote location. I drove past the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center outside of 29 Palms a few months ago. You could shoot a cannon ball several miles in any direction out there without hitting anything of value. The same is true for Fort Irwin just north of there, or the Naval Weapons Center China Lake just off the 395 on the way up to Mammoth. Of course, all those pale in comparison to the vast emptyness of the 1,300+ square mile Nevada Test Range. If it's good enough to test Nuclear armaments, it's probably good enough to handle the occasional wayward cannonball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site Sure, none of these are as convenient to Mythbuster's HQ - but I'm sure they can fit it in their travel budget - and if one of their experiments went wayward and actually killed someone, I'm sure it'd be the end of the show.

dholowiski 15y ago

Has anybody noticed that mythubsters experiments seem to be getting more daring and un-necessarily dangerous? For me it started with the 'curving bullet' myth, that just didn't seem to have the necessary safety controls. Since then I've seen many myths that could have easily ended in disaster, had one simple thing gone wrong. There's a lot to be said for teaching experimentation and the scientific method, but I'm worried they're teaching a whole generation of kids that science is inherently dangerous.

ryandvm 15y ago
Actually, the problem I had with that episode was that they were mythbusting Newton's first law of motion.
- dholowiski 15y ago
  Sure, it was a pretty dumb myth that they were testing and it didn't make for a great episode, i just still can't believe they didn't end up shooting someone.
  - yock 15y ago
    Don't forget too that Kari was pregnant. Calling those sequences poorly considered is an understatement.
- jerf 15y ago
  Meh, they've tested Newton's laws numerous times. If everybody knew them, both intellectually and in their bones, they wouldn't have the myths to test, but alas, I don't think you can claim with a straight face that we live in a society with universal knowledge and deep understanding of Newton's laws. ... and if you think you do, spend some time on the much-referenced "fan site". And furthermore, there is nothing unscientific or wrong about testing our most well-tested theories. The entire point of science is that even then, the theories will still work, not that you should never test them again. I'd also further observe that for all the drama happening here, those swinging gun sequences aren't that unsafe. It may look unsafe but the actual set of things that can plausibly go wrong was less than your intuition may be claiming. It's not like there was a way they were going to shoot themselves with a particularly higher probability than usual. (And remember that if you start constructing far-out implausible scenarios under which that might happen you must be willing to worry about equally improbably things all the time; one rapidly gets to the point where things like simply driving to work must be considered too unsafe to do if one starts spending too much improbability on the constructed scenario.)

ryandvm 15y ago

I don't believe it. If only there was a group of people that could test the plausibility of this story...

mcantor 15y ago
Apropos: http://xkcd.com/250/ http://xkcd.com/250/
- ufo 15y ago
  I can assert this comic has a very appropriate alt-text
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

sebbi 15y ago

Are all houses in the US build from paper walls? No wonder they can not withstand tornados or other desasters ... Hmm ... now i want to the see the actual episode ;-)

darklajid 15y ago

Hmm.. Would have liked to see more details about the accident itself. The cannonball was cast iron? Any estimation about speed and weight? Actually the biggest surprise were the walls of the house shown (mostly the exterior wall): Is this a brick and mortar house/wall? Or is this wood/insulation mostly? Edit: In fullscreen that looks to be a wall made of concrete, with a network of iron/steel to support it? Even if it's a ~thin~ wall by some standards, this is a lot stronger than I initially guessed.

luastoned 15y ago
Just wood and insulation.
viggity 15y ago
The video said the cannon ball was the size of a softball.
fr0sty 15y ago
The house has a stucco exterior. Rigid foam insulation clad with a metal mesh covered with a thin layer of what is basically concrete.
unwind 15y ago
If it was a regulation-size softball made of average-density grey iron, I get 103.9 kg for the mass.
- maxerickson 15y ago
  I get about 4 kg. (It appears you may have used the 12 inch circumference from your softball regulations as the radius of the ball)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- cbr 15y ago
  You might want to practice comparing results of calculations you make to what seems intuitively likely. I think you would find it's a very helpful in catching errors.

reader5000 15y ago

Wow, lawsuit city. Hell, possibly criminal charges. This may spell the end of the show.

xd 15y ago
Lawsuit city for sure. But criminal charges are unlikely as the bomb range personnel would be responsible, surely?
Tloewald 15y ago
They're ok as long as they didn't violate any touch-related patents or build anything in the shape of a rounded rectangle. I'm worried you're right, but if it makes the show less obsessed with explosives that would be ok.
e1ven 15y ago
I think you make things seem bigger than they are. This isn't even their first, or largest accident- http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html Yes, it's embarrassing, and they're lucky no one was hurt. But since no one WAS it, and it's just property damage, that's what insurance companies are for. The insurance company will probably crack down a bit, but they probably need a bit of that.
- cbr 15y ago
  I think this counts as a larger accident. The one you link involved a "handful" of broken windows. This is a similar amount of property damage but came much closer to actually killing someone.
lambda 15y ago
Criminal charges are incredibly unlikely. This was a freak accident, in which they took plenty of safety precautions, but somehow managed to have an accident anyhow. They didn't actually hurt anybody. There are no real criminal charges that could be brought against them. And it will only be lawsuit city of Discovery Channel doesn't offer an appropriate settlement. I'm sure that Discovery Channel has plenty good insurance, and plenty of cash on hand, and will over to cover the costs of the damages to those involved, plus a little extra to keep them happy. There will only be lawsuits if they don't offer a reasonable settlement, which I would find unlikely.

ajays 15y ago

As I was reading that story, the sequence at the beginning of each episode was flashing through my mind, in Adam's voice: "do not try this at home. We are, what you call, professionals"... // yeah, I know, mistakes happen.

donw 15y ago
"Do not try this at home. Instead, let us try this at your home." Or, "We've got years of experience that keeps us safe. You, on the other hand, not so much."

signa11 15y ago

i hope that they don't get judged too harshly for this unfortunate incident. it is a nice and fun program to watch, and would be a real shame if it got canned...

runako 15y ago
It's just a TV show. They really could have killed people in their own home with this stunt. If they can't do it safely, it's not worth the entertainment value. (And I say that as a fan of the show.)
johanbev 15y ago
I hope they are judged harshly for this incident. If they are blasting cannon balls through peoples houses and cars they have no control of what they are doing. Sending balls of cast iron through habitated areas cannot be dismissed as an "unfortunate incident". In my country (Norway) you'd immediately get arrested and charged if you fired a live cannon outside a big millitary shooting range. I certainly hope that their celebrity status won't impede justice in this case.
- sp332 15y ago
  They are at a firing range, it says right in the article "Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation". Apparently the cannonball hit one or two hills before entering the town. They weren't even firing in the direction of the town.
  - johanbev 15y ago
    Apparently not big enough then. This was a lucky case. Wern't and apparently couldn't have undone any bodily harm that was caused. If they indeed were several kilometers from anyone else, then they have miscalculated the ballistic trajectores so gravely that it's completely mindboggling to think of how these guys were allowed to play with explosives in the first place. While I do like some of the MB Episodes, I'm not a fan of blowing up things with oversized explosions in general. Please note that explosives are dangerous. Leave it to professional use. Playing with fire will eventually get you burnt. Accidents do happen, no one is infallible, but one should really go to the utmost of efforts when it comes to blowing stuff up or launching heavy projectiles into the air at great speed. At least if accidents happen because explosives were used for something useful, say, construction, then one could at least think that the damage or bodily harm was for a greater good, even though that is by all means a meagre comfort. However, when these sort of things happen for the entertainment (and the profits of the show, mind you!) of others, then something is really really wrong.

xd 15y ago

Reminds me of the convertible car mishap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy872Fb1ad8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy872Fb1ad8

ck2 15y ago

While I guess explosions sell to a certain crowd, I am more fond of the useful things they do like prove MPG increases with just 5psi more to the tires and how to get out of a car that has been submerged. Guess that isn't "sexy" enough for some. I'm curious if the day they do finally kill or seriously injure someone if the show will be retired. Not wishing for it, just wondering if that's the right thing to do.

TamDenholm 15y ago

One mishap in eight years* is a very good record, the Mythbusters put a LOT of time and energy into safety and it was clearly an accident, they obviously weren't being reckless. I dont have any firm numbers but i'm pretty sure that more space debris and meteorites fall from space every year than mishaps from Mythbusters. * I've no idea if there have been any more serious accidents, but this seems to have been the first since the news story didnt mention precedent.

lucisferre 15y ago
"I don't have any firm numbers" followed by "I'm pretty sure". Sounds like the beginning of a myth.
- pjin 15y ago
  http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=188105 http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=188105 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/did-a-meteor-bring-down-air-france-447/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/04/... A direct comparison may be misleading b/c since you could model meteorite impacts with a probability distribution over latitude/longitude, whereas Mythbusters presumably uses the same testing site(s). Also note that the Google answer's 3 cases of meteors causing injury or damaging property all lie in the US.
dholowiski 15y ago
Definitely more than one mishap. Many of their mishaps make it on to the show, even. This is possibly the most significant mishap, but not the first.
noodle 15y ago
they've had mishaps, but none that seriously endangered general public quite like this one, afaik. example: http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

latch 15y ago

Local news coverage with good details of the damage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-CErr0VOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-CErr0VOY

Splines 15y ago

I really hope they share what went wrong. When they deal with explosives they usually (always?) have an expert on hand to ensure things are done right, so it'll be interesting to see a post-mortem.

garyrichardson 15y ago

Wow, watching that news clip reminds me about why I never watch the news. So much bias and unneeded anger. There's no explanation as to why the canon ball missed. There's also no mention of the fact that: a) the had firing experts on hand b) the fire/police departments were notified ahead of time and probably had someone on site. They also probably had veto power and input on how it was staged. (* I don't know this for a fact. I'm basing this on every other Mythbusters episode I've ever seen) My favorite line: "his elderly mother thought the sky was falling." Makes her sound like a simple nutcase. The son then says, "Yeah, she thought it might be a tree falling on the house or a meteorite." A few months ago my brother and some friends went on an epic multiday hike. The previous year, someone attempted it and was never seen again. They were all experienced and were very prepared. In the end they found themselves in a situation where they had to have search and rescue pull them out -- going forward or back wasn't an option. They had a locator beacon (part of being prepared) and decided to pull it. The other option was to head back, miss their return date and have S&R come looking for them anyway. The local news portrayed them as inexperienced idiots who were totally unprepared. They misinterpreted or manipulated quotes. They didn't actually understand anything -- just regurgitated facts with their uneducated and biased tones and extrapolations. In conclusion, TV news should be ended in all forms. Reporters aren't experts in the subject matter they report. Even though they should be trained to know better, modern news programs make no effort to disguise their bias.

endersshadow 15y ago
I think you're confusing "bias" with "sensationalism." TV journalists (especially of the local variety) look to sensationalize every piece of news that they can. This is due to a whole host of factors--not the least being plummeting local news ratings. But most importantly, I want to touch on the following point: "Reporters aren't experts in the subject matter they report." Of course they're not! Journalism itself is not something that everybody can do. The problem you're citing is not because journalists aren't experts in whatever they're reporting (which is a ludicrous notion--news spans so many different subject areas that it would be nigh impossible to house an expert reporter on every subject). The problem is driven by falling ratings and a need for more gripping and sensational stories. Years ago, Ellen DeGeneres even had the joke that she was eating dinner and the local news came on to say, "What you're eating right now can kill you. Film at eleven."

noblethrasher 15y ago

"Instead the cannonball flew over the foothills surrounding Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation, before spiraling back toward Dublin like a cruise missile." Wouldn't it be more like a ballistic missile?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 15y ago
Cruise missile sounds more sensational to the average Joe. Now they could have said "like a nuclear warhead" or a "dirty bomb" to invoke that easily accessible pre-programmed fear of terrorism as well. Also I think they should emphasize the word "blasted" more times. I feel 4 times wasn't enough. Maybe another 12 times would really demonstrate how dangerous science can be.
freehunter 15y ago
That quote made it seem like the ball changed course. "Spiraling back toward Dublin". I'm not a cannonball expert, but wouldn't it just be "heading toward Dublin"? "Spiraling back" makes it sound like it turned around and went the other way.
- damoncali 15y ago
  projectiles in flight actually do some surprising things -curving or literally spiraling through the air are just some of them. I have no idea what this thing was doing, but at speed and with spin, weird things happen.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    I could see it spiraling or even curving, but it still seems highly unlikely that it would turn around 180, pass by a point where it previously flew over, and cause that much damage after passing through a concrete wall. "back towards" implies just that.

ward 15y ago

I could be wrong on this, but aren't a lot of houses in America made from softer material than stone bricks? Something like gyproc comes to mind. I have to admit, the only reason I think this is because of seeing an episode of that awful house makeover show[1]. I believe the walls they used there were all wood/something similar. 1: Extreme makeover, house edition

HeXetic 15y ago
Gpyroc is drywall, and that is used for interior walls, not exterior walls. Most (non-mobile) homes in the US & Canada are either brick veneer over wooden frame, or double-brick construction where the bricks bear the structural weight to the foundation.
fr0sty 15y ago
Some home exteriors are made with brick or concrete blocks but a large number (I can't quote a percentage) of American homes are built entirely from lumber. Current construction usually involves sheathing the outside of the house with plywood sheets and covering the sheets with vinyl siding. Interior walls are generally covered in drywall (also called "sheetrock" or gypsum board) Where are you from and what are homes built with there?
- ugh 15y ago
  Most family homes I know in Germany are plastered brick houses†. Both exterior as well as interior walls are constructed using (different kinds of) bricks. Wooden constructions are definitely very rare and more a fashion thing than anything else – definitely not a default choice. — † With those bricks: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Lochziegel.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Lochziegel.j...
- ward 15y ago
  I'm from Belgium, I don't know any house that doesn't use bricks/cement/other form of stone material. Maybe sometimes something softer on interior walls, but even there it's mostly stone. I assume we don't go for the easier-to-rebuild because we don't have any strong types of nature force affecting us. There's no earthquakes, tropical storms, tornados etc here. Our summers are "cool" (going over 30C is pretty rare), our winters are "warm" (5 cm snow already feels like a lot to me). In short, we have a pretty moderate climate. Edit: Pretty much the same as ugh[1] said in the other comment. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324587 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3324587

grannyg00se 15y ago

Those involved must've felt horrible when they realized that the projectile was going to miss the hillside and go into residential territory. So glad nobody got hurt.

orenmazor 15y ago

unfortunate, but I bet they have a lot of data now!

christo16 15y ago

This is crazy, happened only a couple miles away from my house...

surlyadopter 15y ago

Just yesterday Kari (one of the Mythbusters) posted pictures on twitter of her standing next to the cannon. They appear to have been removed now though. This isn't the first time one of their tests has accidentally damaged property, there was an explosion a year ago in a lake bed that was stronger than expected that ended up blowing windows in a nearby town.

DanielStraight 15y ago

A general reply to everyone saying this was unacceptable or that insufficient precautions were taken: This experiment was performed at a facility designed for such experiments under the supervision of people who are trained to handle such experiments. The result, while upsetting, was a freak accident. It could not realistically have been predicted. It is not necessarily anyone's fault, even if human error played a role. Life is risky. Sometimes surgeons slip and kill patients. Sometimes food producers slip and ship contaminated products which kill people. Sometimes parents turn around for 1 second and their kids drown. All of these are caused by human error, but there has to be a point where you can say that reasonable precaution was taken so no blame is warranted. Because the alternative, only doing things that are 100% certain to be safe, means never doing anything at all. There is no way to guarantee 100% safety. The building you are sitting in has been checked for safety. But something could have been missed, leading it to spontaneously collapse. And here is the most important point of this entire post: This will be true regardless how thoroughly you check the building.

maxerickson 15y ago
Can you expand on what "facility designed for such experiments" means? Is it licensed in a certain way, or are all firing ranges used by the military reasonable to use for cannons, or what?
- Skroob 15y ago
  If it's where they do most of their explosives testing, it's the county sheriff's bomb range.
extension 15y ago
Human errors will proliferate until they run up against consequences. That is why there must always be consequences.
- timwiseman 15y ago
  This is true to a degree, and I think few would argue against it. The question is, what is the right amount of consequences? Should the party at fault have to pay exactly the damages actually caused to make those injured whole (in other words, actual damages?) Should the party pay a portion of the damages caused so as to partially compensate others while not being ruinous to a party that behaved with reasonable, but insufficient, precautions (a large part of the justification for "proximate cause "is to achieve this, see for isntance "Wagon Mound (No. 1)" and "Wagon Mount (No. 2)", and contributory negligence also plays a similar role)? Or should the party at fault pay far more than damage caused to discourage improper behaviour (in other words, punitive damages)? These are decisions best made on a case by case basis, but the doctrines we lay out for deciding which case falls where affect how willing to take or not takes risks a society becomes. And most of the biggest advancements in human society came through enormous risk, so I for one think we should not encourage society to be too risk adverse. Here, I think the grandparent post makes a good argument that there should be consequences, but they should be exactly actual damages and nothing more.

snorkel 15y ago

So Confirmed, Plausible, or Busted?

bborud 15y ago

I hope Jamie's walrus moustache is okay.

panzagl 15y ago

The real question is why were the houses built so close to the firing range, not why was this experiment done in a residential area. I'd be willing to bet money that the base was there first.

Gustomaximus 15y ago

What I want to know; - Will they air this, please do. - Can Jasper (the minivan owner) keep the cannon ball.

mjgm 15y ago

No one got hurt, and I'm sure they were careful. It's something they are always very clear about on the show... but eh someone/people genuinely could have been killed... so not quite all precautions were taken. Also how amazing is it that the canonball burst through a front door and then went UP the stairs and out the back through the wall on the second floor?! Seriously. I didn't know canon balls would bounce/ react in that way... Kinda reminds me why I love Mythbusters...

knightgj 15y ago

Here in UT they use a couple 1960s-era Howitzers for avalanche control in Little Cottonwood Canyon. They once loaded a shell with too much gunpowder and left a crater in someone's back yard 10-15 miles away.

dnaquin 15y ago

sounds like at least one of these was broken. "ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use."

tlrobinson 15y ago

I'm looking forward to the Mythbusters episode where they bust/confirm the myth about a cannonball flying through two homes and a minivan.

jasonkolb 15y ago

Wow, what a great story! Although, I kind of doubt they'll be able to continue using that air base. I hope they team up with Survivorman to do some really wild stuff in remote wildernesses. The thought of a Survivorman/Mythbusters series makes me giddy.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
This didn't happen at the air base, it happened on a firing range.

akavlie 15y ago

The physics at play here (at least as reported in the article) are hard to fathom. It went through the front door, bounced around the home, UP to the second floor, THROUGH the back wall... And enough energy still remained to send it across a road 50 yards, UP again to a roof, and finally smashing through a van window. I wish they could have captured this with high-speed cameras from multiple angles, like they do with experiments that go as planned.

JeffL 15y ago
I'm guessing that the reporter completely made up the "bounced around" bit to make it sound more sensational. Seems more likely to have entered the front door at an upward angle, sailed through the house and out the back and across the street.
- akavlie 15y ago
  That makes sense. Still incredible that it had so much energy that it was still going after making it through a door and a wall. It's also surprising that it could bounce so high (at least once) after hitting a floor.
  - bh42222 15y ago
    That makes sense. Still incredible that it had so much energy that it was still going after making it through a door and a wall. Keep in mind these are American houses, flimsy paper cardboard and this bits of wood things.
    - enneff 15y ago
      Their Americanness has little to do with their build quality. The climate in California likely does. Been to places in the USA where it actually gets cold? The houses are way more sturdy there because they need to be.
      - rdouble 15y ago

mkramlich 15y ago

Mental note: don't live near firing range.

frankus 15y ago

Love how the page reloads halfway through the video (no doubt in a lame attempt to get more ad impressions), and how I then get to sit through another 30 second ad before watching a two -minute news clip.

christo16 15y ago

Here is an official statement from the city http://www.dublin.ca.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=351 http://www.dublin.ca.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=351

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

fecklessyouth 15y ago

Honestly, HN? I clicked "comments" expecting to see a bunch of insight and analysis on the physics involved, and instead it's just a bunch of rage against local news stations because the station committed the unforgivable sin of making the beloved Mythbusters look bad.

D_Drake 15y ago

I'm disappointed. Hyneman especially should have recognized the danger of combining energy levels like those with the elastic properties of a cast iron ball. If the firing range was within five miles of inhabited area, stone canonballs should be used. They've obeyed this rule in the past.

daemin 15y ago

It certainly goes to show how lethal these weapons were, through two houses, bounced a few times, and even into a mini van. They would have been monstorously lethal on the battlefield, just imagine ranks of soldiers rather than a house.

foxhop 15y ago

The hosts don't "creatively try to prove things true or false". They use science.

ektimo 15y ago

"Incredibly, no one was injured in the mishap." It's not incredible. Most space isn't filled with people.

forcefsck 15y ago

When you're playing with guns, eventually an accident will happen, no matter how careful you are.

bluesmoon 15y ago

The story page is now a 404, looks like they pulled it

pud 15y ago
Found it: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes...

b2spirit 15y ago

Did the canonball also go through cbslocal's server room? That page cannot be found.