I agree with the ticked answer, this post is just to outline specific examples and explain why the show can't be considered an authoritative source.
Mythbusters should not be considered anecdotal evidence at all. Instead, in my opinion, they should be considered a notable claim only.
Here is a good example which demonstrates why mythbusters should be distrusted:
McDonalds made once an ad-campaign showing how they make food. They featured Mythbusters there.
I am Grant Imahara from Mythbusters and I spent years finding the truth now I am gonna across america to find out how Mcdonald's makes its food, so ask your questions and I'll find the answers...
In Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, John Oliver quotes Grant Imahara from McDonalds campaign MythBusters and responds to Imahara:
Yes I've got a question:
Why the fuck are you doing this? Please, round up your answer to the nearest dollar.
But I'm sorry, I'm sorry... Are you an independently investigating the company paying you to conduct an independent investigation?
He goes on saying:
I've been through the whole process. I know exactly what goes into this.
There is no fillers, no preservatives, no additives.
And this how John Oliver ends:
There is something little suspicious about the way they're celebrating the fact that their food was made of food.
After watching this criticism by John Oliver. It turns out that MythBusters claim that:
There is no fillers, no preservatives , no additives.
turns out to be completely ridiculous. McDonald's is full of additive. They even mention it themselves:
Richard Watts, head of the Children's Food Campaign at the food group Sustain said:
We are very concerned that about the heavy use of additives in McDonald's especially the ones identified as harmful to health in the Southampton study
Researchers at Southampton University have found that children who ingest certain additives are more likely to be over-active, impulsive and unable to concentrate. Four of seven E-numbers highlighted by the researchers are on the menu at McDonald's: sunset yellow (E110), quinoline yellow (E104), ponceau 4R (E124) and sodium benzoate (E211).
And what a coincidence, turns out kids were so fond of Grant Imahara and McDonalds hired him to check their stuff; the news article "Mom, why is the 'MythBusters' guy working for McDonald's now?" reported.
The ad trades on Mr. Imahara’s reputation with kids and families as a scientist who dispels urban legends and myths on the Discovery Channel.
Mr. Brag responded also in an email:
This campaign is just a desperate attempt to try to change people's minds about the beleaguered junk food brand- – but it misses the mark. Yes, people are concerned about what is in McDonald's food, but they're also concerned about how it's being marketed, especially to kids. Instead of making changes that actually address these concerns, the corporation comes back time and time again with more marketing to change people's perception of its food instead of actually changing the food itself.
One could argue that Mythbusters is produced Discovery Networks, a company who started as a single channel in 1985, The Discovery Channel, is authoritative due to its reputation and phenomenal success. Not on Skeptics Stack Exchange. Discovery Communications is an entertainment company; they also produce endless shows about ghosts, demons and possessed house, examples:
Those shows have extreme power of conviction; New York Times Culture editor Mike Hale characterized ghost hunting shows as:
.and compared the genre to professional wrestling or soft core pornography for its formulaic, teasing approach.
LA Times staff writer Ed Stockly wrote
the paranormal/supernatural-investigation subgenre that has cropped up on cable television over the last few years, which includes Ghost Hunters, Destination Truth, Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters International and a few others promises to take a skeptical approach in its investigations and to rely on science to confirm or disprove paranormal claims. So far not one has been able to consistently keep that promise.
Discovery Networks paranormal shows aren't evidence of paranormal existence; Mythbusters is at the same level of authenticity.
After outlining those examples, we can conclude that Mythbusters can't and should never be trusted by Skeptics Stack Exchange.