Wednesday, May 27, 2009

An Example of (Superficial) Scientific Criticalness, Handgun Severing Finger - Myth Busters

Just a Critique of something I just saw at 7:45PM MST on The Discovery Channel; the "Myth Busters" used chicken bones and meat to simulate a myth that a hand gun's gases might, perhaps, sever a finger misplaced thereupon.

I have a problem with their methods. First, chicken bones (and avian bones in general) are not like human bones; they are structurally meant to be porous and light for flight (chickens do, in fact, fly, by the way--not far, but they do it).

[Expanding the above statement:]

Personally I'd prefer knowing the densities involved, as well as structural properties (comparatively) of the interwoven fibers in each bone type; for instance, animal bones are, typically, a weave, while human bones are stacked (they are like segmented tubes); deeper detail on avian bone structure than the aforementioned, particularly chickens, however, is a mystery to me.

To be more scientific I'd prefer a simulation utilizing an intact hand from a cadaver, what's more, from a recent cadaver, with the hand attached to the arm, since the force can be distributed through the point of impact down the course of matter to which it is most directly affixed; this is not ideal, (that would be a brave volunteer to mis-handle the gun at firing), but the results, quantified, as well as quantifying the parameters, along with a knowledge of the properties of the hand, its structure, chemical advantages, elasticities involved, etc., pertaining to a human hand, rather than a substitute "hand", would be excessively more accurate, and therefore preferable; even better if there are several tests repeating the experiment in the same, similar, and varied parameters.