
Mythbusters experiment goes awry, sends cannonball through two houses - viggity
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/
======
garyrichardson
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.

~~~
kbutler
> In conclusion, TV news should be ended in all forms.

Wow. I agree there's a lot of misinformation and poor reporting on TV news,
but that's like saying the Internet should be ended because of the poor
quality of slashdot comments.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
A number of studies have consistently shown that TV news makes people dumber:
more misinformed, more irrational, more confused, and less able to draw
reasonable conclusions or make good decisions.

~~~
olihb
It seems I cannot reply to TeMPOraL, but here are some citations:

Iyengar, S. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political
Issues. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S. et Kinder, D. R. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American
Opinion. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.

The New Videomalaise : Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust DC
Mutz - American Political Science Review, 2005 - Cambridge Univ Press
<http://www.jstor.org/pss/30038915>

My M.Sc. in PolSci was useful after all... A third of my master thesis is on
that very subject, but it's in french...

~~~
artursapek
Oh my god, the political coverage is the absolute worst. I am embarrassed by
the system of politics the US has slipped into.

I had friends in high school who had post-middle-age parents who were
absolutely insane politically. Magnets covering their fridge, signs in their
yard, on their walls; their house was just full of propaganda. And they would
sit there after school watching the fucking news and getting outraged every
time they were supposed to. It's clockwork for these news channels.

~~~
younata
You have described my parents. I can't stand to be in the same building with
them when they talk about anything politics related.

~~~
artursapek
It's really sad to see

------
DanielStraight
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._

~~~
extension
Human errors will proliferate until they run up against consequences. That is
why there must always be consequences.

~~~
timwiseman
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.

~~~
extension
_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._

On a case by case basis, we invariably decide who to blame by determing who
accepted responsibility, perhaps implicitly. We don't place blame on
individuals for the betterment of society because we know intuitively that
that is unfair. So, we may decide e.g. to make cannons illegal, but we
wouldn't decide to make _Bob's cannon_ illegal, and throw Bob in jail after
the fact. Likewise, we wouldn't decide to let Bob off the hook for blowing
holes in people's houses because we like cannons and want to see more of them
around.

(And I'm aware that we routinely fail to adhere to this principle, no need for
examples, but it _is_ what we strive for).

~~~
timwiseman
It depends on what you mean by "We". If you mean the courts that develop the
common law of torts, then no it isn't. I suppose it also depends on what you
mean by accepted, but in torts who is responsible is very often a highly
contentious topic at the very center of the case.

In torts, the courts _generally_ try to ascertain fault and try to do justice.
But that is a general principle that they will intentionally and consciously
break away from when they think they are serving a higher purpose. They will
absolve liability or limit liability to just certain victims through the
doctrine of proximate cause. Part of the development of that doctrine was
openly to protect businesses from unending liability (and particularly
railroads) to make sure they stayed in business. On the flip side, we will
apply strict liability for certain activities, even if the injured party was
100% the one at fault. This had numerous reasons, but one of them was to limit
use of those activities.

And criminally, we won’t make Bob’s cannon illegal, but we will happily make
it illegal for Bob to have a cannon while letting Sally have one. We don’t
allow convicted felons to own guns for instance. And we don’t allow the blind
to have a driver’s license.

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

~~~
mcantor
Apropos: <http://xkcd.com/250/>

~~~
ufo
I can assert this comic has a very appropriate alt-text

------
noblethrasher
"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?

~~~
freehunter
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
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
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.

~~~
T-hawk
Frisbees and boomerangs in flight can certainly turn around way more than
180°. Or with sufficient wind, any projectile can turn 180° and come back the
way it came.

I'd doubt a spinning cannonball would actually manage that, but it probably
only takes a curve of 90° or even just 45° for some sensationalist journalist
to exaggerate that into "spiraling back".

------
dholowiski
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
Actually, the problem I had with that episode was that they were mythbusting
Newton's first law of motion.

~~~
ugh
The nice thing is that it is no problem to test Newton’s first law of motion
again and again and again. If you do it right you will always get the same
results.

That’s what Mythbusters is all about. It’s not about rigorous mathematical
demonstrations of why something can or cannot be true, it’s about figuring
stuff out in a way that actually makes it possible to see the result (and not
necessarily as the result of a calculation).

That’s a less powerful and much more tedious approach than our usual methods
of gaining knowledge but it is a lot more accessible and just good
entertainment. Since Mythbusters is less about gaining knowledge and more
about entertainment it’s also the appropriate approach for the show.

~~~
scott_s
Frankly, I think that most of the time, their methods are plenty rigorous. The
only difference between them and research engineering labs is that instead of
writing a paper, they produce a television segment.

~~~
protomyth
For some stuff, the "Can a snow plow driving down the road push enough air to
flip a passing car over?" had so much wrong with it that I didn't finish the
rest of the episodes on my tivo before I moved.

They tested on a dry, flat surface without any hint of ice or snow. As snow
plows are not used in summer, this was a pretty bad error. A runway is flat, a
road is not. I assume they were going for local location for cost and just
wanted the big crash at the end as opposed to showing how dangerous a snow
plow is. Coefficient of friction is an amazing thing.

------
akavlie
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
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
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
_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
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
North Dakota, South Dakota, eastern Montana and northern Minnesota are the
coldest places in the continental US and the houses mostly tend to be cheap
and flimsy. Houses in California seemed to be much more robust, actually.
Build quality probably has a lot more to do with local building codes.

~~~
JeffL
I think it depends more on the year the house was built. Newer houses seem to
be built really cheaply, while ones from 50+ years ago here are fairly solid.

~~~
dalke
Flimsy houses built 50+ years ago likely don't exist anymore.

~~~
burgerbrain
My landlord will likely be fairly distressed with this news. ;)

------
knightgj
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.

------
viggity
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
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
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.

~~~
dholowiski
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
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.

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

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

------
surlyadopter
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.

------
darklajid
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.

~~~
unwind
If it was a regulation-size softball made of average-density grey iron, I get
103.9 kg for the mass.

~~~
maxerickson
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)

------
TamDenholm
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.

~~~
maxerickson
Shooting a high energy projectile into a residential area seems exactly
reckless to me.

They do seem to take safety seriously, it is unfortunate that in this case
that did not translate into choosing a more isolated location (which at least
limits the consequences of a misfire to active participants).

~~~
noodle
1) they were on a military explosives test ground and firing range. implying
that they were in someone's back yard is a bit disingenuous when i'm sure more
dangerous things are regularly tested there.

2) i rather suspect that they were pointing it exactly where they were told to
point it by the officials and experts, as has been the case with pretty much
everything they do on that range.

it sucks that this happened, everyone's lucky that no one was hurt. but i
largely suspect they weren't shooting from the hip about it. the firing range
must've had officials to oversee it. their insurance company regularly
oversees all stunts. and the crew of the show are straight up experienced
professionals, regardless of how it comes off on tv.

~~~
ajross
Then why haven't the more dangerous things wrecked houses too?

I'm stunned at the level of apology going on here ("it sucks that this
happened [...] but" -- seriously?). I like the show too, but people: _they put
a deadly projectile through someone's house_. That's just not acceptable under
any circumstances, no matter how many rules were followed nor precautions
taken.

Someone screwed up badly here. That stunt should never have happened where it
did. Does anyone seriously disagree?

~~~
burgerbrain
Sometimes, in the real world, _shit happens_.

Yes, a cannonball going through some houses should not happen. No, that does
not automatically mean that somebody "screwed up badly".

~~~
maxerickson
The ballistics of a cannon are well understood. That makes the potential
trajectories of the projectile quite predictable. Someone chose to try to
manage the trajectory instead of finding a location where every trajectory
would be safe for bystanders.

In the context of filming a television program, that seems like a big mistake.

~~~
burgerbrain
If the operators of a military firing range got that wrong, then I find it
hard to believe that anybody could have realistically been expected to get it
right.

~~~
maxerickson
"Bystanders" is probably the wrong word. I meant people not participating in
the filming.

The failure in the stunt was that the cannon fired at an unexpected angle and
the ball did not embed in the berm as they expected. If they had chosen a
location where a ball fired at maximum velocity and at the worst case angle
could not hit a person, that failure would have any negative consequences. So
(I think) it was reckless to try to manage the trajectories at a less safe
location.

------
ward
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

~~~
fr0sty
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?

~~~
ward
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>

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I've often wondered about the reasons for differences in home construction
methods.

Do you have a lot of available forests? We have millions of acres of timber
available and that makes framing houses with wood much cheaper. Especially
when you consider how much airspace/insulation modern houses have.

~~~
pyoung
In California, earthquakes are the issue. Brick buildings use to be common,
but they don't hold up very well in earthquakes. I ma guessing the cost of
supplies also play a role.

------
mjgm
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...

------
grannyg00se
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.

------
D_Drake
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.

------
signa11
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...

~~~
johanbev
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
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
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.

~~~
sp332
They weren't lucky, they were unlucky. This never happens. This is a military
firing range. Do you know how many requirements had to be fulfilled for the
range to be built? and the regulations they have to follow for safety?
"miscalculated the ballistic trajectories" They didn't miscalculate, the
cannonball struck the hill, as planned. They didn't plan for it to basically
bounce off in a different direction. The trajectory is not the issue. "Leave
it to professional use" They are professionals with many years of experience,
and they were surrounded by more professionals. "go to the utmost of efforts"
If building a firing range in the middle of the desert and firing toward a
hill, away from the direction of any towns, isn't enough then what is?

~~~
johanbev
They are obviously not professional enough. Either the MB team, or the range
supervisors, or anyone else in that chain.

If your range is situated so close to populated areas that you can fire a
projectile from a makeshift cannon out of the bounds of the range, then get a
bigger range. Or a smaller gun. I have no idea how big their range is.
However, it was apparently not big enough.

I don't know if the ball hit the hill or the sky or a bird on the way or
anything else that might have happened. I weren't there. I also obviously
understand that they didn't plan for the ball to go though those houses.
However intentions does not change facts. Neither do regulations nor safety
procedures, nor requirements.

If you cause an accident then you havent gone to the utmost of efforts in
preventing it. The utmost of efforts might also include not doing it at all.

~~~
Natsu
Nobody is professional enough to screw up 0% of the time. It is not possible
to plan for everything, ever.

> The utmost of efforts might also include not doing it at all.

So, I should never drive again lest I have a car accident? I understand that
you're saying that the reward for this is zero so they shouldn't take any
risks at all. But you're extrapolating the risk from a sample size of one and
exaggerating it.

I'm sure you wouldn't blame someone for driving to the movies, even if that
caused a car accident. And one could just as easily said that they _should've
stayed home_ because the drive was unnecessary and cars are, in fact,
dangerous.

------
fecklessyouth
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.

------
latch
Local news coverage with good details of the damage:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-CErr0VOY>

------
jasonkolb
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
This didn't happen at the air base, it happened on a firing range.

------
ajays
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
"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."

------
panzagl
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.

------
christo16
Here is an official statement from the city
<http://www.dublin.ca.gov/civicalerts.aspx?AID=351>

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

------
daemin
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.

------
frankus
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.

------
Splines
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.

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

~~~
pud
Found it: [http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-
goes...](http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes-awry-
sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/)

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

------
ektimo
"Incredibly, no one was injured in the mishap."

It's not incredible. Most space isn't filled with people.

------
b2spirit
Did the canonball also go through cbslocal's server room? That page cannot be
found.

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

------
christo16
This is crazy, happened only a couple miles away from my house...

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

------
dnaquin
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."

------
snorkel
So Confirmed, Plausible, or Busted?

------
mkramlich
Mental note: don't live near firing range.

------
bborud
I hope Jamie's walrus moustache is okay.

------
reader5000
Wow, lawsuit city. Hell, possibly criminal charges. This may spell the end of
the show.

~~~
e1ven
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>

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
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.

------
ck2
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.

