Massive earthquake in Japan-tsunami warning

[Rambler]

Rambler
I have seen on several "seismic" forums, that geophysicists have some "rule of thumb" that following a major quake, they expect an aftershock equal to the primary shock minus 1 on the Richter scale. That "rule" would indicate a quake near 8 which is in itself a major quake. Does your local media mention at all this level of an aftershock?
Nwsteve

I had heard of this rule of thumb before. But so far this one has defied most rules of thumb. For one, I don't think they expected this many aftershocks. Yesterday a seismologist on the TV said that it would not be out of the question to have another 9er, and that the shocks could last up to a year. Who knows for sure really. Best to keep a supply of food and water, and keep the cars gassed up. And, duck and cover when it starts shaking. Oh, another thing they said was that Tokyo has an 87% chance of a quake up to M8 within the next 10 years... :-(

R

 

[NW-Bound]

One thing they said in that documentary that seemed wrong to me (at 22:00): "The reason the 30 ft tsunami topped the 30 ft tsunami barrier was that the earthquake had caused the shoreline to subside by several feet. But if the land subsided, the sea bed near it subsided as well, so that doesn't make sense to me.

But, but, but the water level is the world-wide mean sea level, which will rise with respect to both the land and the sea bed.

 

[haha]

Workers' Views on Nuclear Safety in Japan

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/world/asia/10workers.html?src=recg

Ha

 

[BTravlin]

Interesting site with a lot of photos of the damaged reactors.

Fukushima Reactor Images

 

[Free To Canoe]

Dude! Those pics look like something out of Buckaroo Bonzi and Return to the Eighth Dimension. This is real bad.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Tigger]

Some updates:

There has been one and possibly three meltdowns: "Officials from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) say fuel rods at the plant began to melt down as early as six hours after the 11 March tsunami knocked out vital cooling systems.
Within 16 hours most of the fuel in reactor 1 had melted to the floor of the pressurised chamber housing the reactor, creating a hole that allowed 3,000 tonnes of contaminated water to leak into the basement of the building.
Officials said the fuel in reactors number 2 and 3 was also exposed to the air and might have largely melted too.

The discovery has forced Tepco to abandon a plan to flood the reactors to cool them in a process known as "water entombment".
Instead, says our correspondent, workers will try to set up a stable cooling system by circulating the water already there.
Some experts fear the water could pose a serious environmental hazard to groundwater and the Pacific Ocean.
Tepco also said it would step up its monitoring of radiation in nearby seawater and study what could be done to prevent contamination of groundwater."
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13423230

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday that its 24-hour operations center had stopped monitoring the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant because the situation there had improved.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/asia/17briefs-Fukushima.html?_r=3


As news media focus on other things, here's a source of timely updates:
Energy News (caveat emptor; their sources vary, but are specified and linked to)

 

[antmary]

Thanks Tigger.

The most upsetting part of this scenario is the withholding of the truth from the public.

It has been raining for days in my neck of the woods, and I'm wondering what exactly is in the water washing over my beautiful organic gardens.

I can't even ponder what is happening to our beautiful Pacific Ocean

 

[ERD50]

Some updates:

Thanks Tigger.

...

I can't even ponder what is happening to our beautiful Pacific Ocean

Tigger, don't you think a motivated person could come up with 10,000x the horror stories related to deaths, horrid working conditions, and dishonest dealings from companies in the coal mining and dam building (or should we call it 'habitat destruction'?) power industries?

antmary - what do you think the combined pollution from burning coal and damming rivers has done to the oceans?

Here's a little coal mining Americana history (couldn't find the song itself on youtube):

The Caves of Jericho Lyrics by The Band

The fire boss's hands are clean as a whistle
The fat cat knows he's a company man
But he should have bowed down his head
When they hauled out all the dead
But it's business, boys, start 'em up again.

Down in Jericho, Kentucky
The mines have all caved in
Down in Jericho.
Broken hearts don't mend
Tears stained eyes of kin...

As long as you are on that computer, flinging electrons around, you best figure out which power sources are the least bad....

-ERD50

 

[Tigger]

Tigger, don't you think a motivated person could come up with 10,000x the horror stories related to deaths, horrid working conditions, and dishonest dealings from companies in the coal mining and dam building (or should we call it 'habitat destruction'?) power industries?

You're absolute right ERD50. Nothing important is happening in Fukushima. And if something goes wrong there, it will only concern one or two city blocks and be cleaned up by the end of the year.

And frankly, I don't know why all forum users don't use common sense and avoid organic food.

 

[antmary]

Tigger, don't you think a motivated person could come up with 10,000x the horror stories related to deaths, horrid working conditions, and dishonest dealings from companies in the coal mining and dam building (or should we call it 'habitat destruction'?) power industries?

antmary - what do you think the combined pollution from burning coal and damming rivers has done to the oceans?

Here's a little coal mining Americana history (couldn't find the song itself on youtube):

The Caves of Jericho Lyrics by The Band



As long as you are on that computer, flinging electrons around, you best figure out which power sources are the least bad....

-ERD50

You are right-on about coal, ERD; actually, I would enjoy my life just fine without a computer. I enjoy living a very simple and care-free life.

 

[Nords]

I can't even ponder what is happening to our beautiful Pacific Ocean

As we used to say in the submarine force, "Dilution is the solution to your discharge pollution"...

 

[TromboneAl]

It's interesting how completely Japan's problems have been wiped off the news by other events.

 

[ERD50]

It's interesting how completely Japan's problems have been wiped off the news by other events.

I was thinking that recently too. Happens all the time.

You are right-on about coal, ERD; actually, I would enjoy my life just fine without a computer.

Ummm, but you're not. So we still need to find the least bad source of power until the majority of us actually do change.

You're absolute right ERD50. Nothing important is happening in Fukushima. And if something goes wrong there, it will only concern one or two city blocks and be cleaned up by the end of the year.

Odd how you get so excited about this subject, and appear to want to be taken seriously, but you don't treat the subject seriously. A straw man argument that puts words in my mouth isn't a serious discussion. So don't be surprised if you are not taken seriously. I never said there were no problems in Fukushima. That would be ridiculous. I've only said that we need to put them in perspective with other power sources. And all the data we have, even including this recent disaster puts nuclear at the top for safety.

You know, you could answer the question - how many deaths from other power sources? How does it compare? You keep ignoring it.

And frankly, I don't know why all forum users don't use common sense and avoid organic food.

Again, there is sound evidence that some organic produce does more harm for the environment than the commercially grown stuff, and very little evidence that it is better for humans. So yes, I'm going to avoid blindly jumping on that bandwagon, unless I have sound evidence that it is significantly better overall. If that isn't common sense, then I will need an explanation.

How was Lady Gaga?

-ERD50

 

[haha]

It's interesting how completely Japan's problems have been wiped off the news by other events.

An important story is in today's Financial Times.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Kan calls for nuclear regulation overhaul

 

[Tigger]

(I wrote an elaborate reply earlier today, but when I hit "submit" it was lost because the site was undergoing maintenance. This is from what I remember)

I've only said that we need to put them in perspective with other power sources. And all the data we have, even including this recent disaster puts nuclear at the top for safety.

You know, you could answer the question - how many deaths from other power sources? How does it compare? You keep ignoring it.

As you know, I don't agree with your repeated statement that nuclear is the safest source of energy.

The comparison you're talking about is flawed:

We don't have reliable data about the dangers involved with nuclear energy. We probably never will. The nuclear industry has a history of misleading claims. (paper by Dr. Sue Wareham)

While coal and dams can and do indeed cause many casualties, I think the potential damage of nuclear incidents is much bigger, but is not being seriously considered because instead of looking at the potential catastrophes, it is often assumed future catastrophes will never be worse than those we've had so far.

There's a simple reason why nuclear plants aren't obliged to be insured for the total extent of the damage they could cause. If the real risks should be covered, then insurance would be so expensive that nuclear power would be uneconomical. Nuclear power is not cheap. It only exists because of massive public funding, not taking all risks into account, and not counting the future costs of managing the waste during more years than any country has ever existed.


I know you don't see things that way and I can live with that. But it doesn't keep me from feeling sad about the damage that's being done and the risks that are being taken.

Maybe we can continue the discussion on nuclear being good / bad in the existing thread:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/were-the-nuclear-protesters-right-55420.html

 

[Brat]

I agree with Tigger and s/he didn't even mention that spent fuel continues to be a risk for centuries with no safe place for storage.

 

[samclem]

I agree with Tigger and s/he didn't even mention that spent fuel continues to be a risk for centuries with no safe place for storage.

I guess it depends what one means by "safe". After a relatively short time the fuel rods can encased in a ceramic or glass cask and sit there without any risk. Or are we talking about "but, in a thousand years a someone could open the cask and get hurt?" True, but not very relevant. There's plenty of stuff that stays hazardous for a long time. Spent fuel is easy to watch--it's conveniently contained in a compact package. The mercury spewed out by coal-burning plants remains a hazard as long as it exists--and stable elements like mercury stay around a lot longer than radioactive elements.

I admit I don't understand why anyone frets over the long term storage of nuclear waste. As long as we are a civilization it's easy to safeguard it. If we're not a civilization anymore, then these few sites with entombed nuclear fuel will be the very least of our concerns.

 

[Webzter]

As a raving [-]environmentalist[/-] conservationist, I'm all for expanding nuclear plants in the US. I'd also like to see more solar and wind at the consumption point (I'll likely put a solar array on the house in the next few years even if it doesn't make immediate economic sense).... aside from some regional projects, though, I don't see solar or wind being viable centralized distribution options.

I'd prefer that we start building now. Designs continue to get safer and I'm quite interested in pebble bed reactor designs. If Exxon is on TV telling me that oil sands make a lot of sense then that tells me they believe oil won't see $80/barrel again and likely has a base closer to $100. So, even if I'm not a peak oil guy, that tells me that this finite, fungible resource we rely on so much of our life for is getting at least somewhat scarcer. Let's get on the ball now rather than when we're scrambling (reactors take forever to come online, wells take a considerable amount of time plus it's fungible and will just go to the highest bidding country unless we get very protectionist).

I'm aware of the risks, but let's face it, we have a viable long-term storage option for spent fuel now and it's time we act. We also have the means to re-process spent fuel. Let's act.

So, yes, in my back yard please.

edit to add stuff:

I run an energy-lean household. I don't like subsidies for things that seem like they should be market-driven. Admittedly, that does put me at a quandary with things like building nuclear when coal is so cheap and putting in solar panels when the payback only makes sense with the addition of subsidies. For example, we're pricing out a new furnace and also considering a geothermal heat pump. Payback on the heat pump is about 10 years as we're on natural gas and not only is nat gas cheap but we don't use a lot of it. Still, I'm interested, even if I don't end up in the house long enough to recoup my investment, because I'm betting on increasing natural gas prices (we're seeing it in fertilizer prices now).

So, where I end up is that, with something as far-reaching as building pebble bed reactors across the country, in a market that's already quite regulated, I'd like to see government involvement in making this the Manhattan Project of my generation.

 

[Tigger]

After a relatively short time the fuel rods can encased in a ceramic or glass cask and sit there without any risk.

That probably costs money and the plants don't seem to have an incentive do it: see this video from 2:10 (the rest of the video is also worthwhile)

YouTube - ‪Plants Stockpiling Nuclear Waste?‬‏

During the years before Fukushima the trend was towards deregulation in the nuclear sector. That trend may change now, until people forget again.

I admit I don't understand why anyone frets over the long term storage of nuclear waste. As long as we are a civilization it's easy to safeguard it. If we're not a civilization anymore, then these few sites with entombed nuclear fuel will be the very least of our concerns.

Civilisations have come and gone. But descendents of those people have formed new civilisations.

 

[ERD50]

Maybe we can continue the discussion on nuclear being good / bad in the existing thread:
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f52/were-the-nuclear-protesters-right-55420.html

Maybe that's best, but they keep overlapping, so I respond to what I see posted.

As you know, I don't agree with your repeated statement that nuclear is the safest source of energy.

It seems that you don't agree (and it's not "my" statement, it is a fact). But your reasons seem fabricated.

The comparison you're talking about is flawed:

We don't have reliable data about the dangers involved with nuclear energy. We probably never will. The nuclear industry has a history of misleading claims. (paper by Dr. Sue Wareham)

And I can say the same about coal.

Massey ‘Profoundly Reckless’ in Mine Blast: Report

“A company that was a towering presence in the Appalachian coalfields operated its mines in a profoundly reckless manner, and 29 coal miners paid with their lives for the corporate risk- taking,”

While coal and dams can and do indeed cause many casualties, I think the potential damage of nuclear incidents is much bigger, but is not being seriously considered because instead of looking at the potential catastrophes, it is often assumed future catastrophes will never be worse than those we've had so far.

How much worse can it get beyond Chernobyl? And yes, I'll argue that it should not even be included as a nuclear power plant accident anyhow, that was a nuclear weapons plant. Yet, even with Chernobyl included the stats favor nuclear.

And we hear that global warming is going to doom us. Isn't that potential damage tied to coal? If you believe that CO2 leads to global warming, then we don't need to fabricate any doomsday scenario - burning coal produces CO2 every hour of every day as a normal part of it's operation. We don't need some failure for it to happen. Plus the environmental damage of mining coal. So we could weigh those potential risks of normal operation of coal against the potential nuclear risks that require an accident scenario.

I know you don't see things that way and I can live with that. But it doesn't keep me from feeling sad about the damage that's being done and the risks that are being taken.

And I feel sad about the damage done and the risks from coal. And the data agrees, even if your heart does not.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Civilisations have come and gone. But descendents of those people have formed new civilisations.

But the descendants didn't say "Hey, let's go play in the xxxxxx" (lime pits, lead mines, toxic waste pond, etc)

 

[Zathras]

While coal and dams can and do indeed cause many casualties, I think the potential damage of nuclear incidents is much bigger, but is not being seriously considered because instead of looking at the potential catastrophes...

Potentially the heating of the artic, led to a massive loss of ice, and therefore mass, from that region of the earth. The redistribution of that mass caused extra strain on the fault. This led to a 8.9 earthquake instead of a smaller earthquake. Leading to this catastrophy.

So POTENTIALLY coal and oil led to this disaster. Yet the insurance for oil refineries and coal plants doesn't include scenarios such as this.

Everything you state about what you THINK is fine. But when you look at what has already happened, coal is more damaging.

I am fine with the idea of improving nuclear power. But we should take care of the bigger threat which is already damaging us first, then take care of the making the safer sources of power safer yet.

 

[Tigger]

[-]
Super typhoon projected to pass over Fukushima power plant
[/-]

EDIT: no longer true, projection has changed. Also, will have weakened to "tropical storm" by the time it reaches that area.

 

[Zathras]

I think that is stretching things. Isn't the plant along the northern coast?
So according to the forcast, the storm is predicted to be of tropical storm strength as it approaches, and I NOT forecast to pass over the plant.
No need to exaggerate things, they are bad enough as it is.

 

[Tigger]

I think that is stretching things. Isn't the plant along the northern coast?
So according to the forcast, the storm is predicted to be of tropical storm strength as it approaches, and I NOT forecast to pass over the plant.
No need to exaggerate things, they are bad enough as it is.

You're right. Sorry, I didn't notice the projection had changed in the meanwhile. Sometime earlier it looked like this:

Also, by the time it gets in that region, it will have weakend to a "tropical storm" which may still be far from ideal, but is better than a taifun.