An example of misleading public discourse likely to support popular misconceptions.
I noticed this statement in an issue of Education in Chemistry, because it implies that a bomb can 'suck in oxygen'
"Thermobaric bombs suck in oxygen to make a high-temperature explosion."
News in Brief, Education in Chemistry, May 2022, p.7
This seems to reflect the alternative conception (misconception) that a vacuum or partial vacuum can actively apply a force to suck material in (when material is actually pushed in by the higher external pressure).
The article referred to the BBC website, which reports:
"A thermobaric bomb (also called a vacuum or aerosol bomb – or fuel air explosive) consists of a fuel container with two separate explosive charges. … When it hits its target, the first explosive charge opens the container and widely scatters fuel mixture as a cloud.
…A second charge then detonates the cloud, resulting in a huge fireball, a massive blast wave and a vacuum which sucks up all surrounding oxygen."
'What is a thermobaric or vacuum bomb?' BBC News website, 10 March 2022
So, the misleading wording seems to derive from the BBC.
While the vacuum 'sucking' misconception is widespread, I am not sure why it is implied that the bomb preferentially leads to oxygen being 'sucked' in: clearly the air will contain oxygen, but the oxygen will not behave any differently to the nitrogen or argon etc.
