Two things about science on TV

I don't watch much TV, but when I do I tend to watch a lot of Discovery channel and that sort of thing. You know, How It's Made, Mythbusters, nature programming, etc. 1) Adam Savage is awesome. Every week I'm impressed by how good Mythbusters is and it's all because the Savage/Hyneman team. The fact that they can put out such a great show while managing the constraints imposed by the Discovery channel and television in general is really impressive. 2) Could Smash Lab be any worse? Smash Lab is a completely derivative television show that is basically the reverse of Mythbusters- rather than try to prove or disprove a myth they try to solve a problem. The first season was miserable, mostly thanks to a poorly chosen team and lots of bad editing. For the second season (I DVR it and watched my first episode last night) two of the original four people were replaced. One of the new guys is "Reverend Gadget"... I'm not kidding.  Anyway, they found a way to make the show even worse. I would say, that with a completely new team the show could be OK. They would need to work on the editing (don't ruin every crash and explosion with going to slow-mo cuts first) and picking better challenges. Plus they insist on trying these outlandish solutions (for example: an indestructible car that has an explosion under it so it can jump over other cars when they are going to hit it) which not only wastes time, but prevents them from trying more practical solutions. Overall though, its foolish to think that in an hour of televison- maybe a week of testing/shooting- four people (seemingly dilettantes) could make an indestructible car or a hurricane proof house.