Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Science bullcrap on TV

Science bullcrap on TV

bismuthate - 28-12-2013 at 18:12

I,ve noticed many a time that TV shows just make up there own science. Won't this end up giving the general population an even more misinformed view of science.
Heres an example.
So I was watching a show called sherlock. In this Sherlock claimed that strychnine shut down the muscles and paralized the victim. I imediately quit watching and muttered angrily in my room.
Has anyone eles seen crap like this?
(I'm suprised that there's no thread on this or at least I couldn't find it)

elementcollector1 - 28-12-2013 at 18:19

Heh. Don't voice your opinion on Sherlock's scientific accuracy... Tumblr will find you.
As to that, a lot of science is made up, misunderstood, or dumbed down. Part of this is because the full explanations would take up the entire 30-minute blocks, and be all boring. Another part is that education sucks in America.
I've yet to see stuff like that on my own - mainly because it's been years since I seriously watched TV.

mayko - 28-12-2013 at 18:31

You might look into this show; the science is decent. You usually have to at least look into the literature to find problems with it. For example, an early plot hinges on silent mutations, in which one codon is exchanged with a different one coding for the same amino acid. Theoretically, this should result in the same protein, with the same functionality, and the show acts as though this is the case. In reality, it's not that simple, because different codons are transcribed at different rates, which impacts the folding of the proteins as they form. Still, it's an engrossing tale they spin. And, one sometimes encounters papers which eerily parallel some of the plot lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReGenesis

[Edited on 29-12-2013 by mayko]

Attachment: Silent mutations affect in vivo protein folding in Escherichia coli - Cortazzo et al 2002.pdf (167kB)
This file has been downloaded 940 times

bismuthate - 28-12-2013 at 18:34

I don't watch TV more than 1 episode a week yet I see plenty of crap.
And here is the list of strychnine poisoning symptoms from wiki
1.Severe nausea, including vomiting
2.Convulsions of all muscle groups, which become longer and more closely spaced with time
3.Spasms of the facial muscles, causing cyanosis of the face, dilated pupils, prominent eye balls, and frothing at the mouth
4.The body may be seen arch-shapes in following postures: 1.Opisthotonus: Hyperextension. The person may be resting on heels and occiput.
2.Emprosthotonos: The spasm of abdominal muscles may bend the body forward.
3.Pleurothotonus: The body may be flexed to one side.

5.Loss of consciousness and a clear mind
6.Immense reflex sensitivity (dramatic exaggeration of normal reflexes)
7.Death due to asphyxiation, caused by muscle spasms[
Sherlock practicaly described the opisite of this!
And don't worry plenty of tumblr hates moffat

mayko It would be great to see some scientific acuracy!

[Edited on 29-12-2013 by bismuthate]

what about

quantumchromodynamics - 29-12-2013 at 06:28

when CSI reconstitutes a barcode from the reflection in someones eyeglasses on some public 256X400 interlaced outdoor survey-lance camera? (Invented pixels)

when the BONES magic murder computer program figures out every angle of every joint and physical body part and compares that against every motor vehicle from every possible direction and velocity and determines the cause of the accident? (Inverted Chaos)

when 2 ounces of magic material blows up an entire building and collapses the overpass, but the hero escapes without having to brush his hair. (No experience with EM)

when Walter White makes mercury fulminate that looks exactly like meth. (Just bad Chem)

And on, and on, and on...

I have a theory. The media is encouraged to coddle the public with false feelings of hope, as though there were some real competence out there.

Random - 29-12-2013 at 08:33

Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1

I've yet to see stuff like that on my own - mainly because it's been years since I seriously watched TV.

Nothing good to see anyway, TV is lately becoming a nice way to massively control people. It makes brainless zombies out of them, looking to buy another worthless product on the market. This, limited science like above and pseudoscience, few reality and fantasy shows.

Zyklon-A - 29-12-2013 at 12:03

Sherlock is one of my favorite shows, it's not perfect, but it's mostly accurate, scientifically and otherwise.

Fantasma4500 - 29-12-2013 at 18:04

the more you know the higher the chances are that you will find something offensively wrong in an average movie.. top that with i cant sit around doing nothing, then get forced to watch movies

but hey lets just for instance take the scene from breaking bad where the guy says 'this isnt meth' and then throws (at max) 15g mercury fulminate into the ground where the entire house blows up and gasoline flame and all of that
i dare you to find a video on youtube regarding mercury fulminate where there is no comments with the slightest hint towards breaking bad, ive seen people call real mercury fulminate FAKE

sometimes you just gotta shut off man...

Pyro - 29-12-2013 at 19:45

I hate the way that the people (people on tv that is) act when presented with science.
they:
a)they act like dumb shits
b)they ''know everything''

examples:
a)WOW, that is so cool! that is like *dumb reference**
b)that happens because of *science ''mumbo jumbo'' that ordinary people don't understand*
(I actually caught mythbusters explaining something in chemistry horribly wrong, and the average person wouldn't know)

TheChemiKid - 30-12-2013 at 02:55

Have you noticed in The Big Bang Theory that almost all of the whiteboards with "revolutionary ideas" are just random scientific variables or complete nonsense.

bismuthate - 30-12-2013 at 04:28

Pyro I think that on most shows they just make it up because almost nobody cares. Especialy lasers. I was watch agents of shield where there were orange neodymium lasers that vaporized bullets mid-flight.
TheChemiKid, Yeah I noticed but back when I was younger I thought I was stupid because I didn't get TV science. (Facepalms younger self through portal made by "gravaty fission".)

gregxy - 2-1-2014 at 11:25

I just watched the whole "Breaking Bad" series. Sure the chemistry isn't perfect, and the electrical engineering is worse, but I have never enjoyed a TV show or movie more and its easy to see why it was chosen as the "best TV series of all time". I'm the same age as Walt, have gone through mid-life crisis and even look like him so it was easy for me to identify with him and then sit there is dismay saying No! No! when he does the unforgivable things.... Amazing writing and acting.

The bad science that I remember was:

1. HF won't dissolve bodies and there would not be gallon jugs of it in a HS chem lab or meth lab.

2. 2" long Hg(ONC)2 crystals would likely detonate spontaneously, and the explosion was all wrong.

3. The battery Walt makes could supply ~10mA, not the 500A needed to start a car. Maybe if he poured acid directly into the cells of the dead battery? He did remove the spark plug from the generator to make it easier to hand crank (nice detail).

4. It would be quite difficult to burn the lock off a door with thermite and there's not much Al in an etch-a-sketch.

4. Methylamine is much easier to make/get than phenylacetic acid or other meth precursors. Plus its a gas at room temp, I guess it could have been aqueous solution of CH3NH2HCl ??

5. Walt's blue P2P meth should be racemic, and the D isomer is nearly inactive. Meth from Pseudo should be mostly the active L isomer so meth from Pseudo should be 2X more potent. (But I don't make or use meth, so who can say??)
It also does not seem like one would make crystals by meting into sheets and then cracking them.

6. Poison from lily of valley is easier for doctors to treat so less likely to be fatal.

5. Nice detail on use of icepacks to get NH4NO3 for 2nd bomb.

6. The electromagnet they built, while strong would have a very short range so it would not have worked.

7. Car bodies don't stop bullets and a pistol and shotgun are no match for full-auto assault rifles.

8. Garage door opener motor probably requires 120V not 12.

9. The details on money laundering and need to mix legitimate business with the drug business were interesting

9. BadFinger's "Baby blue" fits perfectly.

[Edited on 2-1-2014 by gregxy]

GreenDao - 2-1-2014 at 13:48

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy

5. Walt's blue P2P meth should be racemic, and the D isomer is nearly inactive. Meth from Pseudo should be mostly the active L isomer so meth from Pseudo should be 2X more potent. (But I don't make or use meth, so who can say??)
It also does not seem like one would make crystals by meting into sheets and then cracking them.
[Edited on 2-1-2014 by gregxy]

(Don't interpretate this as a condescending correction, I'm just sharing for sake of knowledge/interest. I love organic chemistry and all the theoretics associated with it. Also, this is speaking strictly in terms of theoretical chemistry, of course not intended for production, usage, etc. of methamphetamine)

The dextrorotary enantiomer ("D-enantiomer", "S-enantiomer", "D isomer", etc.) of methamphetamine has a higher affinity for stimulation of the central nervous system and thus is considered the more psychoactive stereoisomer. The levorotary enantiomer ("L-enantiomer", "R-enantiomer", etc.) of methamphetamine is/can be used as a nasal supressant and possesses a lesser effect on the CNS. In terms of the black market, the dextrorotary enantiomer would certainly be the one sought after. (although I'm going to go out on a limb and say that isomerism isn't paid much attention to in the black market, perhaps in "upper end" "laboratories", though) Interestingly enough, the reduction of (+)-pseudoephedrine (at least while using pharmaceutical grade) yields only dextromethamphetamine, as opposed to the phenylacetone reduction which produces a racemic mixture. Walter actually does refer to this by saying "And if our reduction is not stereospecific then how can our product be enantiomerically pure?"

[Edited on 3-1-2014 by GreenDao]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 2-1-2014 at 15:45

Quote: Originally posted by TheChemiKid

Have you noticed in The Big Bang Theory that almost all of the whiteboards with "revolutionary ideas" are just random scientific variables or complete nonsense.

They're usually physics equations, not revolutionary, but not complete nonsense. I suspect any that were nonsense were meant as inside jokes...that's something the producers seemed to have bothered to take some care with.

Note: I'm speaking based on the first couple of seasons. Maybe they gave up on the rest?

dontasker - 3-1-2014 at 11:19

Anyone seen the episode of Brainiac where they demonstrate alkali metals in water? Including francium.
I nearly lost all hope for this world.

TheChemiKid - 3-1-2014 at 11:37

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

I'm speaking based on the first couple of seasons. Maybe they gave up on the rest?

They sometimes use simple physics equations, but all of the "Discoveries" are nothing at all.

GreenDao - 3-1-2014 at 12:02

Quote: Originally posted by TheChemiKid

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

I'm speaking based on the first couple of seasons. Maybe they gave up on the rest?

They sometimes use simple physics equations, but all of the "Discoveries" are nothing at all.

I'm just curious what you expect... Do you think they're going to beg at research institutions for discoveries or something to that extent for sake of realism?

gregxy - 3-1-2014 at 12:51

Quote: Originally posted by GreenDao

The dextrorotary enantiomer ("D-enantiomer", "S-enantiomer", "D isomer", etc.) of methamphetamine has a higher affinity for stimulation of the central nervous system and thus is considered the more psychoactive stereoisomer. The levorotary enantiomer ("L-enantiomer", "R-enantiomer", etc.) of methamphetamine is/can be used as a nasal supressant and possesses a lesser effect on the CNS.
...
the phenylacetone reduction which produces a racemic mixture. Walter actually does refer to this by saying "And if our reduction is not stereospecific then how can our product be enantiomerically pure?"

[Edited on 3-1-2014 by GreenDao]

Thanks, I had the D and L enantiomers reversed. There is something on Erowid where they convert the "L" nasal spray to the racemic version to increase it's effect. Walter did mention stereo isomers in his techno-babel. As long as the impurities aren't toxic or meth-antagonists its probably not worth doing a lot of purification, buyers are probably not as picky as Breaking Bad makes them out to be.

It's kind of fun to try and read the blackboards in Big-Bang theory, most of which looks like undergrad physics. If they used actual string-theory (or what ever Sheldon is working on) equations almost no one would recognize them so fewer people could have this fun.

CSI is also full of bad science, but the show went a long way towards making science "sexy".

Etaoin Shrdlu - 5-1-2014 at 12:25

Quote: Originally posted by TheChemiKid

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

I'm speaking based on the first couple of seasons. Maybe they gave up on the rest?

They sometimes use simple physics equations, but all of the "Discoveries" are nothing at all.

The "discoveries" are things people worked out already, but hardly nothing at all. I'm not certain why it's assumed the equations are meant as the discoveries, either. I have a notebook riddled with "simple math equations" which taken on their own say nothing about what I'm actually designing. Most of the whiteboard collections are far more than "simple physics equations," and are pulled from important theories in the field. They don't use current cutting-edge research because it would be a jerk move to attribute that to a fictional character.

MrHomeScientist - 7-1-2014 at 09:29

Not really TV, but did anyone see Pacific Rim?

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

The part where most of the giant robots get disabled by an EMP, but one survives because it's "analog." I laughed out loud in the theater. Are they really saying that the entire robot is made of vacuum tubes? Powered by hamsters running on wheels? In the age where they have technology to build gigantic robots piloted using brain-interface and mind-sharing technology, then just went what the hell let's build one out of vacuum tubes and see how that goes.

They could have just as easily made up that it had some sort of high-grade experimental EM-hardening or something, and that would have been way more believable in the context.

[Edited on 1-7-2014 by MrHomeScientist]

gregxy - 7-1-2014 at 12:17

What bothers me most in movies are flaws in basic physics that "simply look stupid".

The "river battle" scene in the latest Hobbit move is a good example. (for some analysis see http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/should-dwarves-sta...)

"Gravity" started out well but became ridiculous at the end.
(You launch the space ship just by pushing the big red button, The Chinese, Russian and American stations are so close together).

Although I like Ironman and the "Tony Stark" character the self assembling flying parts suit and exploding villians in the last film were too much.

Car chases and fight scenes in older movies were fun because they used actual cars and you would wonder "how did they do that". No you know its all CGI and about as interesting as watching someone play a computer game in "god mode".

Some people watch movies and think real cops should actually be able to shoot guns out of the bad guys hands or shoot them in the foot etc. Difficult shots if you are calm, impossible if pumped with adrenaline and shaking like a leaf.

And of course we all know that bombs that have giant digital timers and curly red and blue wires and teaspoon of XXX that can blow up a city block....

gravityzero - 7-1-2014 at 12:59

Quote: Originally posted by quantumchromodynamics

when Walter White makes mercury fulminate that looks exactly like meth. (Just bad Chem)

And on, and on, and on...

I remember seeing a Breaking Bad out-take that made me crack up.

There was a part in the series where Walt hides his money in a vacuum cleaner, which happens to get sold by his wife in Walt's abscence.
Upon discovery, Walter and badger decide to pay a visit to the old lady that purchased the vacuum cleaner.

While outside the ladies house, Walt and Badger are contemplating ways to take back the vacuum and recoup the cash.
Badger makes a suggestion, "Can't you just make chloroform out of something, like maybe bleach?!? Then we could make her pass out and steal the vacuum."
Walter responds, "No. It does not work that way.", or something to that effect.

I thought it was interesting when it turns out that you actually can make chloroform this way.

unionised - 7-1-2014 at 13:06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

mkurek - 8-1-2014 at 08:20

Whatever you do don't become brainwashed by television.

And definitely DO NOT watch MTV. Your brain will enter a state of possibly irreversible atrophy.

Fenir - 8-1-2014 at 18:35

In an episode of Dr. Who, there was an acid being mined from the earth that could melt bodies in seconds and disolve stone equally fast. The crystal of mercury fulminate that was close to 2 cm was also amusing.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 12-1-2014 at 13:01

Quote: Originally posted by gravityzero

Badger makes a suggestion, "Can't you just make chloroform out of something, like maybe bleach?!? Then we could make her pass out and steal the vacuum."
Walter responds, "No. It does not work that way.", or something to that effect.

I thought it was interesting when it turns out that you actually can make chloroform this way.

It's the "knockout" that wouldn't work the way Badger was thinking. Chloroform isn't the holy grail of instant unconsciousness that it's become in popular culture. They could have made it though. (I haven't watched the episode, but that's what I'm getting based on the dialogue.)

100PercentChemistry - 11-6-2016 at 11:55

I was watching mythbusters and they did the sulfuric acid a sugar demo and listed the chemicals but when they got to the p nitroanaline they said it was a "secret highly dangerous chemical" or something. The sulfuric acid would probably cause more bad,

ficolas - 11-6-2016 at 12:27

Quote: Originally posted by 100PercentChemistry

I was watching mythbusters and they did the sulfuric acid a sugar demo and listed the chemicals but when they got to the p nitroanaline they said it was a "secret highly dangerous chemical" or something. The sulfuric acid would probably cause more bad,

They also did that with H2O2, when they dumped a pig in piranha solution to bust when they disolve bodies in breaking bad with hydrofluoric acid.
But shit gets worse when they talk about computer related stuff, they just throw words together to make a sentence that sounds computery to people who dont know about it. In CSI they created a "GUI interface with visual basics to track an IP"
Sometimes is to make the show funnier, like when they make DNI analysis in a couple hours, sometimes is to not give information to the public, and spread ignorance, because why not, and sometimes is just because of pure ignorance.

[Edited on 11-6-2016 by ficolas]

pepe - 11-6-2016 at 14:37

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

Quote: Originally posted by gravityzero

I came here to say this as well. Its not a reference to the synthesis but to the method of knocking someone out.

In the converse of the OP's topic I find that futurama, while stupidly hilarious, actually has a lot of interesting science incorporated into it.

RogueRose - 12-6-2016 at 04:52

I guess most writers take their perogative for "artistic freedom" which allows them to exagerate and completely miss-identify a lot of stuff. The problem is that many people hear this stuff and think it is gospel.

My biggest problem is on shows on "science" based channels like Discovery, TLC, History, etc and they talk about stuff, especially chemicals and how extremely dangerous they are.

An example was a shoe talking about how dangerous old chemistry sets were/are. The vials that came with the set contained MAYBE 30g (probably more like 10-20g) of each chem. They made a statement that the set, if mis-used (like a run-away reaction) could destroy/blow up a house - meaning totally destroy it! WTF, I want to know what 120g (say 4 30g samples mixed) could destroy a house.

The woman also states "some are extremely toxic and deadly" and then picks up a small vial of copper sulfate and says "like this" this would now not be included as it is a potent poison.

Look at the people in the show and wonder what their backgrounds are. They are just whoring themselves out and spewing dangerous stupidity. Sad state of affairs.

Praxichys - 15-6-2016 at 11:09

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

They are just whoring themselves out and spewing dangerous stupidity. Sad state of affairs.

You should read some of the comments made on my YouTube channel, particularly the video on mercury. Every other post is someone telling me I'm about to die. It was funny at first but now I find it sad to watch others jump on the bandwagon of uninformed assertions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXv8XmW3oQ

aga - 15-6-2016 at 12:27

What ? You touched mercury ?!?!

You're gonna die !

Us Immortals never touch the stuff.

(bananas are also lethal in sufficient quantity, or if handled incorrectly)

[Edited on 15-6-2016 by aga]

morganbw - 15-6-2016 at 13:50

I like them all, if it is total bullcrap and I actually know the chemistry, I am able to say to my wife that the chemistry is off and this will not happen and then for a brief moment I am full of myself.

What if these shows/or possibly one of them, with their flawed chemistry excites a few young people to expand their lives beyond TV/movies and helps propel them into a scientific oriented life. Really what if?

coalminecanary - 3-7-2016 at 17:31

This thread summerizes the way programmers feel when watching the TV filth that is CSI: Miami/New York/etc.
If it was accidentally left on in the background, it's sure as hell getting shut off when they start talking about tracing the IP with GUI using VB.NET

APO - 4-7-2016 at 17:12

I think it was Law and Order, it described nitrobenzene and aluminium as a powerful, extremely sensitive explosive; for one, that wouldn't even explode at all, and most aromatic explosives are extremely insensitive and always need a very strong blasting cap with a booster.

In Homeland, only atropine was used as antidote for sarin, it's usually used in combination with pralidoxime; also, potassium chlorate can't detonate on it's own.

I'm starting to think TV shows intend this kind of misinformation; almost every time, it's kinda close to being somewhat right in the grand scheme of things, that I think they make it a tad wrong on purpose. It seems like too big a coincidence that it could've been even more wrong, but it's just wrong enough to seem stupid.

Arg0nAddict - 5-7-2016 at 03:13

Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

They are just whoring themselves out and spewing dangerous stupidity. Sad state of affairs.

Ah the ol' youtube comments.. I get a lot of the "I work for the eff-bee-eye see you tomorrow" or "Aye-Tea-Eff on the way" 50% of the comments I get are insults, 25% threats, 10% mom jokes, 10% asking answered questions, 5% actual help like if said something wrong or made a mistake.

To stay on topic, I enjoy all these shows errors and all, I like to find the mistakes keeps my mind sharp, not the csi computer stuff though thats too far bogus, USA's Mr. Robot is actually legit, its beyond my expertise but I fully believe if my life depended on it I could do it. CSI just no, not possible. I do wonder about touch DNA though, seems like it could be real or at least in development. I loved breaking bad and Dexter. I was pissed when dexter ended how it did.

[Edited on 5-7-2016 by Arg0nAddict]

pepe - 6-8-2016 at 19:01

Resurrecting this thread to say that what is seen regarding DNA and television is most blatantly false. To get DNA off hair the root still needs to be intact. As far as leaving behind skin particles or something whatever you leave behind would be basically invisible to the naked eye and probably wouldn't be enough for valid results anyway. Even things like blood are only usable depending on if the conditions are sufficient for preservation.

j_sum1 - 6-8-2016 at 22:27

Nah. DNA collection methods have improved.
Now it is relatively common practice for example to wipe down a car steering wheel for DNA rather than lift fingerprints.
Where the TV shows get it wrong is the length of time to analyse the DNA and the certainty of the information gathered, It takes days. And if there is a mixture of DNA from more than one source (which is common) then it is a tough mathematical exercise to determine the probability that a particular suspect could have contributed to the body of evidence found at the scene.

mayko - 6-8-2016 at 22:34

(xkcd)

Cezium - 6-8-2016 at 22:35

pretty old improvement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

James Ikanov - 28-8-2016 at 20:38

I think one of my pet peeves in this realm is that often people who are subject matter experts are too busy actually doing subject matter to tell the writers and actors how to do certain things, generally.

They're getting better about this with the whole "gun safety, moving and shooting" stuff, but science, explosives, and macgyvering chemicals together are still a bit above the average writers paygrade.

That said, I think macgyver is a decent middle ground. A few questionable things but a lot of relatively good scientific concepts that those things are based on.

I especially love the episode where he builds a charge out of nitromannitol to fight off a herd of carnivorous ants.