Massive earthquake in Japan-tsunami warning

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Thinking of Rambler and others after today's estimated 7.1 earthquake in Japan. Hard to call something that intense an aftershock. Tragedy upon tragedy - - my heart goes out to the Japanese.

Same here W2R. I hope Rambler is able to check in at some point.
Japan has the thoughts and support of the world with them.

[Rambler]

Thanks W2R, Sheehs and all

The epicenter was up by Sendai again, in the Northeast, a couple hundred miles from Tokyo. It was quite strong here in Tokyo as well but no damage that I know of. I did have a couple of employees with minor injuries in the Sendai area...a banged up ankle due to a cabinet falling over, and a slash from glass shards from a shattered window. The power is/was still out in many area up there, but many places had another round of outages today. All of my locations are back up and running as far as power goes but I still have employees in that area whose water hasn't yet been restored since the main quake on 3/11.

After the first quake, the authorities were saying we could expect aftershocks for 2-3 weeks. After 2 weeks, they said it might be up to a month. Today is 4 weeks, and on this morning's news, the latest prediction is that the aftershocks could continue for up to a year, and that it is very possible that they could be up to the magnitude of the original quake. I think we've had somewhere around 800 so far, 2 of which were over magnitude 7, and around 40-50 in the magnitude 6 range.

Thankfully, I don't think any deaths have been reported with last night's shock.

R

[sheehs1]

Good to hear from you Rambler. Hard to imagine a 7.4 classified as an aftershock. I suppose at 7.4 it packs the same punch whether aftershock or not. Stay safe...and glad there aren't any deaths reported from this one. Hope it stays that way.

[nwsteve]

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

[W2R]

So glad to hear that you are OK, Rambler. These gigantic "aftershocks" (or whatever they are) must be tremendously stressful after all you have been through already.

[Rambler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwsteve 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]

Quote:

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]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/wo....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/wo...hima.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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigger Some updates:

Quote:

Originally Posted by antmary 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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antmary 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antmary 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigger 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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl 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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 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/foru...ght-55420.html