I’ve caught the show from time to time and think it’s kind of fun (I’m female, too, BTW). While I think some of their stuff is excessive and some of it is junk science, it’s still a hoot to watch.
Seeing these two guys getting wasted and then trying to beat the Breathalyser was hilarious.
I watch it more for the amusement than for the love of science - I find it to be a very funny show. The fact that I find the hosts to have sex appeal aplenty has, of course, nothing to do with the reasons I watch. 
I thought the show was ok, but a bit lazy on the science. There is an urban legend about a woman who got into her hot car with some cans of biscuits, which exploded and splattered the back of her head with dough. The woman held the back of her head until someone came to help her, because she thought her brains were falling out. On the show, they demonstrated that cans of biscuit dough could in fact explode violently in a hot car, and concluded that the event could have happened. However, the cans didn’t begin exploding until about 20-30 minutes of exposure at 140[sup]o[/sup]F. Most versions of the legend I’ve seen have the cans exploding much faster, and have the woman sitting in her car waiting for help for a good while. At 140[sup]o[/sup]F she probably would have died of heatstroke.
You missed my point. I’m well aware Snopes provides a list of references, and it seems they take their references at face value. At Myth Busters, they perform their own experiments and you see exactly how they set it up and executed their plan. That’s what I meant.
140F is not unheard of if the car has been parked in the sun for a while. Assuming the lady put the biscuits in the car, went and did another errand, and then came back and the biscuits exploded, it’s certainly believable.
I don’t know what order the shows were made in, but I saw the “dropping Buster from a crane” episode before the “Buster in the killer washing machine.” If they were filmed in that order, then, yes, they reassembled poor Buster after his crane drop.
At the conclusion of the ‘barrel of bricks’ segment, they made reference to the fact that Buster may now have to be retired. I don’t know if he actually was retired.
I enjoy the show, but there’s one thing about it that ticks me off. From time to time, the guys go through their whole setup and experimentation schtick and find that x urban legend is actually physically possible (biscuit dough, barrel of bricks). Then their “research expert” comes out and announces that it “never happened” because she can’t find a record of it in old newspapers or police reports. I’m sorry, but you can’t prove a negative on such flimsy grounds. Instead of calling such stories “busted”, they should create a “physically possible but unsubstantiated” label.
I’m a fan. I discovered the show with my family on New Years Day when a family friend called Dad to tell him about the Barrel of Bricks episode. We watched several discussing what would happen during the show. I particularly remember Dad, a retired engineer, and my little brother, who owns a bar, talking during the Peeing on the Third Rail myth, pointing out that the coherence of the stream and how much pressure it was expelled under would influence the result. The conclusion was they underestimated the amount of pressure a man would exert under those circumstances.
As someone else said, it involves science, weapons (I’m thinking of the penny gun), and blowing stuff up – what’s not to like?
Besides, I may be straight woman, but I’ve got a weakness for stupid macho pet tricks, not to mention a curiousity about how stuff works, so this show plays to those to traits beautifully.
CJ
Yes, I know all this. But the legend claims that the woman remains in the car, windows up and doors locked, holding her “brains” in, for an extended period. Here’s a Snopes article on the legend. If in fact a woman sat in a car hot enough for a can of biscuits to explode, and she remained there for an hour afterwards, she would be dead from hyperthermia. While the exploding can is plausible, the rest is not. Also, the show placed a rack of biscuits at head height behind the driver seat. Such an arrangement isn’t very likely with actual bags of groceries.
Seeing as how it is an urban legend, how do you know they were using the same source material (aka legend) as Snopes? I know I’ve heard copious versions of copious legends, so there’s no one version more reliable than another.
I may not be all that smart, but I’ve always been tols that you can’t “prove a negative” anyways. Perhaps you meant to say something else?
You can prove a negative by establishing that X event could not possibly have happened. This may not satisfy everyone, but is pretty damned convincing in a court of law.
Once you have proven that x event is physically possible, however, you can no longer prove that it didn’t happen.
It’s pretty entertaining, but I fear that the shaky science might drive me mad if I try to watch regularly. I watched the soldiers-on-bridge episode, and the whole time, I was wondering if that thing they built had anything in common with a real bridge, aside from shape.
Hopefully, the show will act as a gateway to better mythbusters, such as Snopes and TSD.
On the topic of Buster, I think he was put back together after dropping him in the water. If you watch that show (as well as the Washing Machine and the Barrel of Bricks shows) he was still in pretty good shape. He started getting pretty worn after they blasted him from the culvert cannon and blew him halfway out of an airplane.
I think they just keep cleaning him up, reattaching limbs and think of more things to do with him. I think they’ll keep abusing him until his head looks like a mashed burnt matchstick.
I personally love the show myself. Sometimes I think they could have been more scientific with their “busting” but then I have to remind myself they are making a TV show for the general public. I think they’ve come up with a happy formula between science, idiot myths, and humour.
Granted, not all myths need to be busted -think brain control chips implanted while giving blood. While that was a STUPID myth, their “busting” of it made for pretty good tv.
I thought their Alcatrez escape show was great. They built the raft and made it off the island onto the mainland in quick order. While it doesn’t bust the myth of the three prisoners, they did prove they in fact COULD have made it.
I know they’re working out season 2 at the moment and have sussed out some good myths.
I suppose I don’t know. I also suppose I don’t have much else to say on that episode, but consider this one: They decided to test whether an airplane toilet could conceivably suck out a woman’s innards, so they built a foam model of a butt and thighs and measured the tension on it when exposed to the toilet’s suction. When that failed to produce any catastrophic results, one of the hosts sat on the toilet in his boxers. Other than some rather odd sensations, he didn’t suffer any injury. Now consider this article by someone you may have heard of:
Now who are you gonna believe, some acolyte Mythbusters or the Perfect Master?
It’s ignorant to think of the “master” as “perfect”, especially when aforementioned “master” isn’t even a “person”. I don’t take anything at face value, and “Cecil’s” answers are no different. Anyways, in the example you mentioned, all I know is that under the circumstances the Myth Busters utilized (when we all witnessed), they debunked the myth, again in accordance with their guidelines.
*(which we all witnessed)
Their finding on the “Better to walk or run in the rain” question were the opposite of Cecil’s.
So, because Cecil isn’t “real” you’re going to completely ignore a report from <i>JAMA</i> ( a respected medical journal ) cited by Jan Brunvand ( who is widely acknowledged as THE preeminent expert in Urban Legends ) in favor of a couple of TV yahoos and their 8th grade science project? How remarkabley…pigheaded, fanboy.
So is Cecil a cyborg? An AI? Even if the name Cecil Adams is a nom de plume, someone is still writing the columns. I don’t actually think he’s perfect, that’s just the title he goes by around here 'cause he’s a cheeky sort of fellow. My point is, I don’t feel that Mythbusters is rigorous enough in their debunking.
Oh, and here’s the JAMA website. The article referenced in Cecil’s column isn’t available, but the title and author are there. Look near the bottom of the page: