8.9 quake. Wow!!

I hope our Japanese readers are all OK?

Some astonishing video of the tsunami on CNN. Water passing over farm land at an astounding rate carrying ships, cars, and burning debri.

The reminants of the Tsunami hit Maui early this morning.

Lots of scary footage here in the UK. Possibly thousands dead. The Japanese Prime Minister is now announcing an emergency at their coastal nuclear power stations. :(

Fingers crossed.

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 03/11/2011 11:46:43 MST.

Japanese authorities have just announced that they are releasing 'radioactive vapour' from one of their plants as a 'safety measure'.
Sound like BS to me. :(

Hey, Miguel, You OK?

(that's the one person whose name I remember off the top of my head)

Hope all BPL'ers are OK.

HJ

Miguel posted this up earlier:

So far all the UL walkers I know are okay. Facebook and Twitter have been a godsend. It's 9 hours and STILL shaking.

UK news reporting that the cooling system on a nuclear reactor has failed. Thousands evacuated.
Praying that this doesn't get even worse.

Thoughts and prayers for all there!

Miguel responded to the Christchurch thread - he is OK.

2149 GMT: The Kyodo news agency is now citing a safety panel as saying that the radiation level inside one of the reactors at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant is 1,000 times higher than normal.

They are actually venting radioactive steam.

Maybe building reactors on coasts isn't such a great idea round the pacific basin

Evac zone is now 10km

The Tsunami crossing the farmland carrying all that debris was one of the more shocking things I think I've even seen.

One would assume that they scrammed the reactor early in the emergency.

Reactors are often built around large bodies of water for cooling purposes. Unfortunately, if you have no power to pump the cooling water, it doesn't do much good.

--B.G.--

Yes they are. The old plant in Oregon was built right on the Columbia River for that reason - easy access to cold water.

"Maybe building reactors on coasts isn't such a great idea round the pacific basin"

Maybe building reactors isn't such a great idea

"Maybe building reactors isn't such a great idea"

That could be the topic for a whole new thread. However, in hindsight it does seem reactors of the future should be built so that backup power for pumping water is not affected by submersion and cooling will carry on no matter what. It's a tough ask. Rivers can be diverted by landslides and earthquakes. Backup generators need oxygen for combustion, so can't be housed in waterproof containers. maybe they should have a huge snorkel that will suck in air no matter how big the tsunami. Anyway, it's water under the bridge now. All we can do is hold our breath and hope they get the reactors under control, and find fewer loved ones have been lost than predicted. It's an unimaginably terrible tragedy.

"All we can do is hold our breath and hope they get the reactors under control"

We could not build any more

Another problem with reactors is the shortage of Uranium. It comes from a few countries, like Nigeria, so we'll be in the same problem we're already in with oil.

All I can say is wow of the helicopter images coming from Japanese television coverage. Now we know why the tsunami is Japanese word it like a dam bursted unbelievable. I lived in Okinawa, Japan while I was in the air force. Most of the island is mountainous juts out on the west side that would have been affected. But if the tidal surge did wrap around at the bottom part of the island they may have gotten flooding. Okinawa has low lying areas on the sea of japan side or east side they have 15 to 20 foot sea walls that are 3/4 pipes with giant cement "Jack's" in front of the sea wall to send out tidal surges back out to sea during typhoons.

I was in 1971 Sylmar earthquake it was big and thrashed our house. I really feel sorry for the japanese people getting hit with a 8.9 earth quake clean up and rebuilding will take a long,long time.

Hopefully the rest of the world will chip in with aid like the last earth quake and tsunami.

Edited by socal-nomad on 03/11/2011 18:55:09 MST.

Maybe not building reactos isn't such a great idea. Life is a risk / reward game. Consider any method for making electricity and you will find something undersireable. Find a risk free, zero impact, cheap and reliable source of electricity gereration and you will make yourself a very rich fellow. I guess the easiest way to check all of those boxes would be to turn off the lights.

Uranium supply should be of pretty low concern relative to other forms of "fuel". Heck, the steel needed for a plant is probably scarcer than U235.

The newer designs are trying to incorporate passive cooling for post scram cooling w/ active safety system availability. AP1000 is one that has recieved final design approval from the USNRC (not sure about elsewhere) -- though it still has its questions to answer.

NHK is advising that everyone within 10 ks of the the reactor is to evacuate - about 60,000 people.

"Uranium supply should be of pretty low concern relative to other forms of "fuel". Heck, the steel needed for a plant is probably scarcer than U235."

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_market

There is 80 years of supply of Uranium at current consumption levels

If we increase the number of nuclear plants, this is obviously reduced

This is not much of a long term solution to energy production

If we could make fast breeder reactors, and figure out how to process the fuel, it would multiply the usable supply by a factor of 100, plus it would largely solve the waste problem, but this would require expensive development and the final result would be more expensive than the already expensive nuclear plants. Maybe we should work on that.

was almost to fort bragg (very close to trail) when i got stuck in the morass of roadblocks designed so that every fiefdom of gov't near that region could get in on the money and glory of saving peter.
there where police road closures, sheriff closures, highway patrol closures, eventually a fireman closure guy told me just to go back home,."it's useless, and if you ge there, they;ll probably just throw you out.."
was up on a substantial cliff at 8am and saw the monster hit. oh brother. it covered up a rock and some seaweed.
---
on the other hand.
was "scheduled" to be parked On The Beach in Usal at 8m and sleeping in my rig, which could have been icky depending upon how high above the tide line things got parked.
got sidetracked by shepherding two blitzed chicks back to town last night and that made me so late i did't make Usal beach.

"Maybe i could give you ladies a lift back into town, as it looks like that's the direction you came from. it might not be a bad idea, as ya'll look about half knackered.."

"just WHAT exactly makes you think We've been drinking" in a acquisatory tone.

"well .. for one.. you just asked me for jumper cables .. and for two .. and the both of you haven't quite figured this out yet ... your van won't move .. because ... there's a TREE stuck underneath it..."


twas an interesting evening.

v.

Was trying to find anything specific in republican spending cuts

http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/ProgramCutsFY2011ContinuingResolution.pdf

But not a lot of specifics, this is just a broad proposal and since it isn't being passed it's sort of irrelevant

Lots of cuts to FEMA - if we had an earthquake closer to home we can see how an efficient FEMA would be money well spent. There's potential for a worse quake off the Oregon/Washington coast so I'm worried.

I have heard they want to cut the NOAA Tsunami warning center in Hawaii - maybe they should incease spending on this

Their most vicious cuts are to developing alternate energy - we can see that long term (decades) we have major problems - hydrocarbons produce carbon dioxide that may have catastrophic effects, oil supply is limited, uranium supply is limited/no solution to waste/no matter how safe the proponents claim this is I am not so sure:

We need to be researching long term solutions - this is where government is best because private business is better on problems with short term profits

"We need to be researching long term solutions - this is where government is best because private business is better on problems with short term profits"

And how on earth do you know this? Are you even aware that there are companies with 100 year and 250 year business plans? And why do you want to throw out this kind of tripe in this particular thread?

--------------------------------------------------

I want to get back to the OP. I have gone through a couple of the largest quakes in Calif history. But 8.4 or 8.9? This is almost beyond comprehension. Add the tsunami too! After a large quake, the after shocks continue for months, and some are rather large. Every after shock traumatizes a lot of people.

Miguel, hoping you and your family are okay.

"And how on earth do you know this? Are you even aware that there are companies with 100 year and 250 year business plans? And why do you want to throw out this kind of tripe in this particular thread?"

There may be some companies that have 100 and 250 business plans but you saying that shows you are attached to your beliefs and will defend them at all costs

If you call something tripe it shows you have no logical argument

I agree with you, this would be very traumatizing and hope everyone recovers as best possible

Good to learn any lessons we can so future catostrophies aren't as traumatic

For example, the Japanese have learned from the past and have strong building codes which limited damage

Are you even aware that there are companies with 100 year and 250 year business plans?

Nick, where should I start on that?

1) Care to name some?
2) What % of the world's GDP do the represent?
3) What's their research/planning budgets as % of revenue?
4) Most importantly, what's the compensation structure for their top decision makers, how does it ignore or at least de-emphasize short term gain and emphasize very long term gain?

Number 4 is there because in my life I've frequently observed folks who's words bare no relationship with their actions.

Jerry and Jim, if you want to debate it, please start a new thread in Chaff.

I am not going to do the research for you. I will give one that I know about. Matsu$hita Electric. I found out about this a few years ago while doing research on solar technology. This company developed a 250 year plan a long time ago. Last I checked, Matsu$hita and its subsidiaries were ranked among the 100 largest companies in the world. Don't know if you would consider that large enough to be of any significance. And not that I even care, seems I remember reading somewhere that the terrorist group Greenpeace viewed this company favorably.

There are US companies that have 100 year plans.

I also wish that we would not present personal observations or experience as empirical data.

----------------------------------------

Out of respect for the people of Japan, I feel any further discussion in this particular thread is inappropriate.

:)

P.S. I am not mad (e.g., not upset)

P.P.S. I had to misspell the name with a $ (dollar sign) (how appropriate), because BPL would not allow the post due to possible profanity. Hmmm....

Most will be more familiar with Panasonic , MATSUSHITA's consumer brand name (now the official company name)
Franco

Edited by Franco on 03/12/2011 17:35:05 MST.

"I want to get back to the OP. I have gone through a couple of the largest quakes in Calif history. But 8.4 or 8.9? This is almost beyond comprehension. Add the tsunami too! After a large quake, the after shocks continue for months, and some are rather large. Every after shock traumatizes a lot of people."

I am not trying to belittle what Japan is going through, but the tsunami is clearly far more terrifying and damaging than the quake. The quake was 8.9 'at the focus', which was 130km from the nearest coast and 380km from Tokyo, at a depth of 25km. Especially in terms of Tokyo, though the shaking was no doubt ferocious and the aftershocks relentless, it would be felt as no where near an 8.9. I would be interested to know the Modified Mercali rating for what went on in Tokyo. As a more personal example, we had a 7.1 quake back in Decemeber, ~40km from the city centre, and it did not feel as strong or do as much damage as our more recent 6.3 quake which was basically under the city and very shallow (<5km). A geologist friend of mine also has told me that shakes generated from subduction zone movements are not as damaging as other similar magnitude movements such as from strike/slip faults. Still, glad I was no where near the place. The thoughts of being in a high-rise city like Tokyo in any kind of quake terrifies me. I have seen first hand how even buildings built to the highest earthquake standards at the time can fail in the wrong kind of shaking...no fun being inside or outside near high-rises in an earthquake.

I too worry about the west coast of America, especially since I'm going there soon, but will stay as briefly as possible!

Edited by retropump on 03/12/2011 21:09:01 MST.

If you read the article you linked...it essentially says... the supply at current demand based on known (b/c it has been previously identified) reserves will support about 80 yrs -- based on the current market recovery price. Definatly not the same as "we know we only have enough U235 for 80yrs. Further on in the article there is a table the mentions there would probably be enough to support millenia. The think is -- its not a heavily search for mineral. We could try much harder to find more and would find more. More could be found at a higher recoverable price -- double that number ($130/kg) and I bet you quadruple the amound of known supply.

Recyling fuel is already done in France and other countries. The technology is there. Another viable option is reprocessing nuclear weapons to be used as fuel. U235 isn't the only viable nuclear fuel. If interested look into the Thorium fuel cycle

One thing they mentioned is that there's a lot of Uranium in seawater

The article also mentioned that increasing the supply beyond 80 years is more expensive, and reactors are already super expensive

"I too worry about the west coast of America, especially since I'm going there soon, but will stay as briefly as possible!"

We get used to quakes. Fault zones like the San Andreas are fairly well defined, and you can walk right out to a spot and stand with one foot on one side and the other foot on the other side. Try Hollister California. As long as the San Andreas keeps slipping periodically, like it does, the pressure is relieved, and we get little bumps like 5.0 or 5.5. Some of the faults are not so well defined, and some have had little pressure relief. So, those are the loudly ticking time bombs. I've gotten so used to quakes that I am calibrated during sleep. I will not wake up for 5.0, but I will wake up for 5.5. Fortunately, ever since the Sylmar quake forty years ago, the building codes have been tightened up very nicely.

So, when I hear the news about 8.9... Yikes!

It makes me go and re-inventory my earthquake preparedness cache.

--B.G.--

"I too worry about the west coast of America, especially since I'm going there soon, but will stay as briefly as possible!"

The California quakes are babies, no need to worry

The one to worry about is off Oregon and Washington

Subduction zone like the Japan, only it's longer so it could be worse

Last happened 300 years ago. Happens about once every 300 years - we're due

But if you're just visiting no need to worry, chance of it happening while you're visiting is remote

If you wanted to live next to the ocean for many years, within 100 feet elevation, maybe you should worry

I think I read today that the subduction zone off Oregon was the only zone in the ring of fire that hasn't had a major earthquake in the last 100 years. Scary. Wish there was a way to help our BPL members in Japan, or help them help others.

We indeed intend to tour up through Oregon and Washington, and it is this subduction zone that worries me to some extent. However I also grew up in California, was in SoCal for the Sylmar quake and really don't want to be in a concrete jungle for another round (remember the bridge that fell down in Sylmar, they rebuilt it and it fell down again in Northridge???). This is where we will spend most of our time, and the San Andreas is due for a very big move sometime (soon??). Note: The Sylmar and Northridge quakes were not the same as the San Andreas moving along the main fault line. They would have relieved little/no pressure on the San Andreas in SoCal. To be fair, Christchurch is expecting a similar quake on our alpine fault, with about the same probability as the San Andreas. The quakes we had recently here were more the equivalent of a Sylmar or Northridge event. I would just rather be stuck here in the aftermath of a major quake (where we are prepared as long as we survive the initial disaster) as opposed to somewhere where we have no control over water, sanitation, food, cooking or shelter and could possibly be stuck there for a while. Here, the land around me is full of food and water as long as I can walk, and our own supplies, including fuel to boil water and cook food, as we have now well tested, can last a very long time if need be.

Jerry, I was reading about the potential for a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake the other day - scary stuff.

They say its a 10-15% chance of an 8.5-9.0 quake in the next 50 years. There are also estimates of a tsunami with wave heights of up to 100 feet.

Goodbye Cannon Beach.

The earthquake in Japan has been officially upgraded to magnitude 9.0

The nuclear power plant in Fukushima is in very serious condition, might very well go into a meltdown.

http://tinyurl.com/5ucp2s6

Whatever it is on the scale... watching the videos and photos, I am simply dumbfounded!!

Probably like most people, I have a feeling the casualty list will grow immensely in the week(s) ahead. And yet, Japan is ahead of everybody else in terms of earthquake preparedness. Is there anyone who still fancies the notion that man has tamed Nature? I think not.

I think the early warning preparedness was wonderful and during the earthquake things were actually very orderly and calm, as much as could be expected. But now things are beginning to unravel. The information infrastructure is just awful. Tomorrow morning there is going to be a rotating blackout schedule to deal with the shut down of half of Japan's nuclear power plants, an effort to supply power to the rest of the country from areas where the plants are working. The problem is that all the information is conflicting and no one knows which one to believe, what time the blackouts will really occur, and which areas are going to be affected when. In addition food is beginning to run out in the stores and in panic people are hoarding basic goods, so that there might be serious problems with acquiring food (a major concern for me, with my diabetes). Also, the government is trying to allay everyone's growing fears over the nuclear power plants, and saying that there is nothing to worry about, but expert nuclear technicians in other countries are voicing mounting fears of a meltdown. That and Nagano also had a major earthquake yesterday, the news of which was lost amidst all the hullabaloo over the north. The growing fear and panic, bolstered by the continuing aftershocks (many of which are as big as regular earthquakes) is spooking everyone. I am totally freaked out.

Edited by butuki on 03/13/2011 12:15:04 MDT.

The always-useful ABC has posted a series of before/after aerials that begin to convey the damage extent. My take-home message: quake bad, tsunami far worse.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm

Rick

My condolences to all those that have lost loved ones.



fyi...

http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_src=RSG000000000&s_subsrc=RCO_NewsArticle

American Red Cross Responding to Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami

The American Red Cross is offering assistance to the Japanese Red Cross following Friday’s magnitude 8.9 earthquake and resulting tsunami that left towns and villages in Japan devastated.

The Red Cross around the world is a very worthwhile charity IMHO.

As for the 9.0, again I stress this was at the focus and not really a "main event" in this disaster. It was clearly the tsunami it triggered that is the main act. As you can see in before and after footage, most buildings were still standing after the quake, and in video footage of things like offices during the shaking people are still standing and walking around filming. And according to the USGS "Widespread ‘strong’ shaking of shaking intensity VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale was felt on Honshu – where the potential for damage is "light" for resistant structures and "moderate" for vulnerable structures –including the cities of Toyko, Yokohama, Morioka and Fukushima (according to Shakemap Version 4). The USGS Shakemap also indicates that much of Honshu was exposed to ‘moderate’ shaking of intensity V MMI."

Compare this to our February 22, mere 6.3 earthquake where the "According to the latest USGS ShakeMap, Christchurch and its surrounding suburbs experienced MMI levels of VIII or greater ('severe' shaking with moderate to heavy potential for damage); in contrast, the shaking intensity in Christchurch during the September 2010 Darfield 7.1 Earthquake was between VI and VII."

I only point this out, not to belittle the shaking that Japan has experienced, but because so many people think Christchurch has unsafe or slack building codes because a so much 'smaller' earthquake did so much more damage than a 'massive' 9.0 in Japan. Also note the "peak ground force acceleration", which it is not a measure of the total energy of an earthquake, but rather how hard the earth shakes in a given geographic area, was a massive 2.2g (gravities) very close to the city centre. Compare this to the Honshu/Sendai peak acceleration was only 0.35g.

Again, my sympathies and donations go out to the people of Japan in their darkest hour. Trust me, we in Christchurch understand the lack of power, water, sewage, communications and not knowing where or how are loved ones are. What we can not comprehend is that tragic tsunami and the devastation it struck. I would not trade places for anything right now.

The tsunami did not hit the entire country, but it was massive.

Remember the Richert scale is base-10 log scale. The aftershocks are nearly the same magnatitude as the Sylmar quake and other destructive ones in Calif. Japan is probably better prepared for earthquakes than any other country. The most important thing to me is the psycological impact each aftershock produces. Wide spread panic can create problems the government and relief agencies cannot deal with, and it can result in more damage and death than the quake itself.

"Remember the Richter scale is base-10 log scale. The aftershocks are nearly the same magnatitude as the Sylmar quake and other destructive ones in Calif."

The Richter scale is no longer used by the world's geologists. When they talk of magnitude, they are usually referring to the Moment Magnitude scale. however I believe (though am not certain) that the Japanese use a slightly different scale again. In all scales, the error of accuracy is at least +/- 0.2, so call the Japanese quake between 8.8 (which is what the Japanese have been quoting) and 9.2. No matter how you measure it, it was a huge seismic event at the focus, and the tsunami results are truly mind-boggling. However, I will stress again, the shaking felt, whether 130km in Honshu, or 380km in Tokyo, is much less than even the Sylmar quake. Keep in mind the Sylmar quake was named for it's epicentre because the epicentre was on land, whereas the current Japanese quake is named by the town/region closest to the epicentre, which is 130km away. And also note the difference in peak ground acceleration (aka Near Source, or near Fault, i.e. near the focus/epicentre): Northridge being a very strong 1.7g (I don't know if they used this measurement when the Sylmar quake occurred but it is quite clear from the damage that it was pretty high), Honshu being only about 0.35g. The Sylmar was a strike/slip type of moveement, which is generally more more damaging than a subduction movement, given equal momentums. The Sylmar had a Modified Mercalli rating of MM8-9, compared to the rating of MM6 for Honshu and MM5 for Tokyo. In other words, just because it was ~9.0 at the focus doesn't mean you feel an equally strong shock in California. Distance from event, peak acceleration, type of media the seismic waves move through, and local geology all have a huge impact on how an earthquake is felt and what damage it does. At the distances from the epicentres I've seen, the aftershocks (nor the main shock) are not anywhere near what the magnitude is. The only frightening aftershock is one you feel, and if it's a 7.0 130km away, it may only be a slight fraying of the nerves. I would love to hear from anyone in the vacinity of these events to comment on how it felt. Not the tsunami, I mean the shaking and aftershocks.

Basically I'm trying to get folks to understand the difference between "Magnitude" of an earthquake and "perceived shaking or damage" where you happen to be standing on this planet relative to that earthquake.

Lynn, I bow to your knowledge about how the measuring system works, but to say that the earthquake itself wasn't a "main" event is, I humbly have to say, wrong. The tsunami did far more damage, yes, but if no tsunami had come the earthquake itself would have caused more damage to the (relatively unpopulated, compared to say, Tokyo) area than any other earthquake in Japanese history. In Tokyo it would have been calamitous. The 5.8 magnitude we had in Tokyo at the same time wasn't that much smaller than the earthquake that hit Kobe 20 years ago. I've never felt or seen anything like it in all the 40 years I've lived here, with many earthquakes under my belt, including being near the Hanshin Earthquake, and that felt nowhere near as powerful as this one did here in Tokyo300 miles away. And that was the 5.8! Up in Tohoku not much damage due to the earthquake occurred because it was mainly in the countryside, with mostly rice fields about. But it was still the biggest earthquake ever in Japanese history. Plus you have to remember building earthquake codes here are extremely stringent. Most of the buildings stayed standing because of those codes. No one could have predicted the tsunami, though.

The aftershocks continue 3 days later, some as strong as regular quakes.

Anyway, the power is about to be turned off. See you on the other side.

"however I believe (though am not certain) that the Japanese use a slightly different scale again"

Lynn

Yes, they do: they measure them on moment magnitude. Sendai was an 8 on their scale

Regardless of the size, there are a lot of people missing, including a disproportionate number of young children.

Edited by Arapiles on 03/14/2011 04:18:01 MDT.

A friend of the family has 5 acres in Landers ,California about 20 miles from Joshua Tree national park. He has the fault line 50 feet from his house going through his property it look like a 3 foot bump berm because erosion over the past years.

He took me to a cabin on the fault line about a mile from his house with cement slab floor you go inside the entrance is at ground level. Looking at the back of the cabin is split in two and sit about 3 feet higher than the entrance. Kinda like a earthquake induced split level house.

The raised level has sunk about one foot from it original height raised height from the initial date of earthquake he showed me were scientist had painted marks and dates to monitor what is happening to the fault line. The scientist are keeping the cabin and using the the cabin to study the rise and falling of the fault line in that area. It was pretty cool to see in person and the power of what the earth can do by raising the earth 4 feet higher in a region of the desert.

Edited by socal-nomad on 03/14/2011 12:32:36 MDT.

Most of the world, including NZ, now uses the Moment Magnitude scale instead of the Richter to measure earthquakes. Our 7.1 and 6.3 were both Moment Magnitude scale, not Richter. The 9.0 reported was also on this scale.


The 5.8 that hit off the Honshu coast was half as far away as the 9.0, so of course it would feel pretty strong. That is my point. Distance is very relevant. It was 138km from Tokyo instead of 380km. According to the USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/c000227k/index.html), it was felt as a Mercalli 4 (Mercalli scale) in Tokyo, and M5 in nearer regions. This compares to the M6 felt in Tokyo with the 9.0 (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/events/us/c0001xgp/index.html). I was not in Tokyo, but these are the best scales of shaking comparison we have in different areas for the same earthquake event. Now imagine it had been right under Tokyo, and you will get and idea of why Christchurch was so damaged by a 6.3 with up to M8 shaking versus a 7.1 40km away with up to M7 shaking. I feel for you that any shaking is scary, and if it was the worst shaking you've ever felt then it is even more scary. But by all official estimates (and the video footage I've seen) it wasn't really that bad in the populated regions compared to many smaller Magnitude earthquakes nearer populated areas. Put another way, good building codes or not, if the 9.0 had been right under Tokyo it would be a very different story. We have the same high building codes as Japan, but like Japan we also have older buildings that were built to the best code at the time, but between aging and repeated shaking some of them have failed. Given the up to M8 shaking recently experienced, it may not be a surprise that some of them collapsed. There is naturally to be an inquiry into why they failed to see if other buildings of similar age and construction can be brought up to current code. We also have (had) our heritage buildings which were unfortunately built with un-reinforced masonry. In hindsight these should have also been brought up to code. Hindsight is a good thing if we learn from it.

Lynn

Tokyo has had M6 quakes in the last couple of years - and there was no damage at all. I was there in 1992 when there was a shallow quake from a fault directly under Tokyo which set off the automated civil defence stuff - but, again, it did no real damage.

"Put another way, good building codes or not, if the 9.0 had been right under Tokyo it would be a very different story."

Yes, we know that. It would have been a very different story in Christchurch too.

In southern California most privately owned heritage buildings made out of brick and mortar or just wood and sitting on a premiter foundation have not been brought up to code. People people buy the house because of the heritage surrounding the building are not concerned with safety in a earth quake and take their chances.
But public heritage buildings like apartment buildings in southern california have been retro fitted with thing like cables drilled through the walls connected to small plates of steel on each side of the building to hold the building together. If it can't be up graded then their is warning sign that say you may be entering a unsafe building if earthquake hits at the entrances of public buildings.

The bridges of freeway bridges pillar have all been fitted with 1/4" steel sleeves that fit around the concrete pillar.

The up grade were expensive but we will see if they hold up earth quakes are very powerful no mater what measure you take to earth quake proof a building or a freeway.

I took a road trip up to San Francisco a few months after the 1989 earthquake we were skateboarding for about a mile on top of the collapsed Embarcadero Freeway State Route 480. It was all twisted up and it went up and down like drainages ditches and had drop off to the next section of 3 feet. It was fun to skate but my buddies and I were in awe of the damage the earthquake did also.

Edited by socal-nomad on 03/15/2011 12:18:02 MDT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15fuel.html

The spent fuel rods are in water pools in the same buildings as the reactors

They are constantly releasing heat, so you have to keep the pools cooled

Since the earthquake the cooling has stopped, the water in the pools is boiling off

If the water pools boil off enough to expose the fuel rods to air, they can catch fire and spread all sorts of bad stuff far and wide, Chernobyl style

They are finding radioactive Cesium outside the nuclear plant, this is only found in fuel rods

The experts keep saying everything is fine, no risk of anything

It's sort of like Ben's history of the Chinese, denying that the European canons are a risk, even after repeated warnings they ignored it

Eventually we may acknowledge that the risk of nuclear power isn't worth it

Maybe at least we'll ackowledge that stronger government regulation of nuclear power is critical

"It's sort of like Ben's history of the Chinese, denying that the European canons are a risk, even after repeated warnings they ignored it"

Actually, no. In the Japanese case, I think it's more of a "need to know" attitude -- let the ahem, experts do their work and quit rousing up the masses -- who can't be helpful anyway. I remember reading that Japanese doctors often WON'T tell their patients the full extent of their sickness for similar reason.

In China's case, everyone from the elite down to the peasant had been so ingrained of their own superiority that the reverse can happen was simply incomprehensible. Think that is peculiar? No, not really. Even with 20th century open communication and all -- a mere handful of decades of success SO BLINDED Detroit they saw but completely failed to recognize (never mind react) to the ever-improving Datsuns and Toyotas -- seeing but not really seeing for 10 friggin' years -- until it was too late! Unable to deal with the onslaught of cheaper and better built cars, Detroit could only cower behind the US government -- begging for protection. The protection came in the form of imposing a "voluntary" curb on Japanese cars -- which saved Detroit's ass. And even then, one lousy miss and 40 years on, Detroit is still basically playing catch up!!

Think about the "Detroit Phenomenon" -- smugness built on a few decades of success -- and compare that to a couple thousand years of success!

Sorry for the thread drift. Now back to topic.

Is it true that radiation levels have started to drop? Not an iron-clad indication of total safety -- but that's got to be good news, right?

Maybe not totally analogous to China

But experts are arrogant about their understanding of the problems and dismiss any risk. After it's demonstrated their risk assesment was incorrect they're slow to accept it.

Yes, good that radiation levels have dropped.

The reactors are probably okay because of the containment vessels.

The spent fuel pools may be a real problem because they have no containment vessels. The explosions that occurred at four reactors have blown open the flimsy coverings so they are exposed to the air, but it's difficult to know what's happening because there's radiation and debris everywhere.

The article said it could take a few weeks for the water to boil off so maybe within a few weeks they'll have a solution rigged up or there'll be a major leak.

If the rods are exposed they can catch fire. The fire can cause stuff like radioactive Cesium to blow all over the place. This has a half life of 30 years. This is what happened at Chernobyl.

They said our superior Western reactors would never have the problems that occurred at Chernobyl.

I hope they're right.

"Tokyo has had M6 quakes in the last couple of years - and there was no damage at all. I was there in 1992 when there was a shallow quake from a fault directly under Tokyo which set off the automated civil defence stuff - but, again, it did no real damage.

Yes, and most of the damage in Christchurch was done to buildings that should have been retrofitted or demolished long ago, the rest was due to liquefaction, rock fall and cliff erosion (call the last three bad building site selection). The two buildings that collapsed that really shouldn't have are another matter, and will be studied thoroughly.

But I also stress again there is more to how damaging an earthquake is than just magnitude:

-How long the fault is: I don't know the details of the M6 quakes that have occurred under Tokyo, so I really can't compare, but as a comparison, the 9.0 off the coast happened along something like 700km, our 6.3, though releasing a lot less energy, released along a mere 15km of fault

-Acceleration: Again, I don't know the details of various Tokyo quakes, but eh Christchurch M6.3 had, by far, the highest acceleration of any quake ever recorded near a populated area. Acceleration is very damaging.

-Local geology: Again, I am unfamiliar with Tokyo geology. In Our M6.3, the seismic waves traveled through 3 miles thick of wet sediment and bounced off the volcanic material at the side of the sediment reflecting waves back into the sediments, plus the constructive interference of all those waves hitting the surface. It is not how strong the energy in the waves are at the focus but how the waves behave when they
reach the surface which determines damage at the surface.

For these reasons (and more??) it may be that Christchurch of the future will need more stringent building codes than Japan, or the city itself may need to move away from the wet sedimentary soils of the drained swamp it was built on.

I am hoping those more familiar with Tokyo and it's earthquakes can fill in some of the blanks RE: geology, acceleration and fault lengths above.

"Put another way, good building codes or not, if the 9.0 had been right under Tokyo it would be a very different story."

Yes, we know that. It would have been a very different story in Christchurch too."

Amen.

My heart goes out to you Miguel and all the people in Japan and their families here in the US and elsewhere. If you can think of anything we can send your way that you could pass on to those who need it, please let us know.

Hi Lynn,

Some of the data you're interested in are available here.

ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/maps/sigeqs/20110311/20110311.pdf

This will surely become the best documented earthquake in history, eventually, but in the meantime they have some very big issues to resolve.

Best,

Rick

"I am hoping those more familiar with Tokyo and it's earthquakes can fill in some of the blanks RE: geology, acceleration and fault lengths above."

Most of the Kanto plain is alluvial (washed down from the Alps) and in addition a lot of Tokyo has been built on reclaimed land over the last 400 years - Ginza used to be waterfront ... Although the Sendai quake was 400ks from Tokyo, it still caused liquefaction in the Tokyo Disneyland carpark, because Disneyland is entirely located on reclaimed land. Disneyland isn't an ideal place to be during a big quake - it's ringed by industrial plants including refineries and gas storage, is on low-lying reclaimed land on the bay and faces the main fault line in Tokyo which runs under Tokyo Bay, and which has in the past generated sizeable tsunamis.

Apparently the safest part of Tokyo - where the bedrock is closest to the surface - is underneath the Imperial Palace.

Acceleration - we haven't had any acceleration like there was at Northridge.

Thanks DW. That's the sort of stuff I'm interested in. Indeed, Tokyo sounds in a similar situation to Christchurch with the eastern side most prone to liquefaction and less so as you move west, without the basaltic rim for waves to bounce off to the south. At least we don't have a subduction zone to the immediate east to worry about. We get plenty of warning if a potential tsunami is coming.

Ironically, The original Disneyland in Irvine California may also be at high risk for liquefaction even though we tend to think of California as generally pretty dry. Most of Irvine is also built on a drained swamp full of alluvium. Guess that's why it's the heart of "Orange County". Nice damp silty soils make great horticulture. Shame it's all covered in houses now. I think orange trees are less prone to damage by liquefaction than houses! Irvine also has a wall of solid bedrock behind it for seismic waves to bounce off.

Northridge acceleration was the second highest so far recorded at 1.7g. Considering the high accelerations of the Northridge quake and the relatively short fault length, we could actually say it held up pretty well for the magnitude of the quake. If it had been on wet alluvial soil it may (most likely) have been much worse. At accelerations of 2.2g the Christchurch quake was unprecedented for a populated area, though the magnitude was less than the Northridge.

Thanks also to Rick. I will check out your link when I am back on broadband. It is too big a page to load on a dial-up connection. After 15 minutes it is only 17% loaded!

Hi Lynn,

Sorry about the big document, I posted the highest resolution link so yea, darn big for dial-up.

Another Japan data set here. I don't know whether it's easily converted to g--but it's peak accleration measured in cm/s^2 (for three axes). Just a web page.

http://smo.kenken.go.jp/smreport/201103111446

Cheers,

Rick

Hi Rick

The acceleration (in g) for the 9.0 event was 0.35

I was more curious about the earlier local Tokyo events (as in Tokyo was at the epicentre) such as those in the M6 range that DW was talking about...Doesn't really matter. The crises in Japan are far beyond any one earthquake, and have literally shook the planet.