Weekend tornado outbreak causes heavy damage in Virginia, Iowa

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:00 PM GMT on April 11, 2011

Share this Blog
3
+

Floods, fires, and tornadoes hammered the nation this weekend, a sure sign that April is here. The severe weather action began on Friday night in the mid-Atlantic when twin tornadoes touched down in Pulaski, Virginia. The twisters, one a strong EF-1 with 105 - 110 mph winds, and the other an EF-2 with 125 mph winds damaged 450 buildings, caused $8 million in damage, and injured eight people. The most significant day of the weekend tornado outbreak occurred on Saturday as a powerful storm over the Upper Midwest dragged a cold front through Iowa. Twenty-seven tornado reports were recorded in Iowa by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center. The most powerful of these tornadoes was the huge, 3/4 mile-wide tornado that plowed through the tiny town of Mapleton, Iowa on Saturday evening, leaving a trail of destruction 3.5 miles long. The tornado, preliminarily rated as an EF-3 with 136 - 165 mph winds, flattened 20% of the town of 1200 residents and damaged half of the buildings. Fourteen were injured, but miraculously no one died. The severe weather continued on Sunday with seven reports of tornadoes over Wisconsin. The most serious was a tornado in Lincoln County, which destroyed or heavily damaged 30 buildings, and caused three serious injuries.


Figure 1. Tornado chaser video from Saturday's twisters over Iowa from tornadovideos.net.

More severe weather today
As the cold front that triggered the weekend's severe weather progresses eastwards across the U.S. today, NOAA's Storm Prediction Center has placed a wide swath of the Northeast and Southeast under their "slight" risk area for severe weather, one notch down from the "Medium" risk that was posted for Wisconsin on Sunday and Iowa on Saturday. Tuesday and Wednesday should be relatively quiet days for severe weather, but Thursday will see a renewed chance of a significant severe weather outbreak in the Oklahoma-Arkansas region, as a major new spring storm gathers strength over the Midwest.


Figure 2. Severe weather outlook from NOAA's Storm Prediction Center for Monday places much of the Northeast and Southeast in the "Slight" risk area for severe weather.

Tornado season near average so far this year
According to statistics compiled by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center, 2011's tornado season has been near-average so far. The preliminary number of tornadoes reported as of April 10 was 301, and the six-year average from 2006 - 2010 was 339. Preliminary tornado counts are typically about 15% too high, so the actual number of confirmed tornadoes will end up being around 256. The peak part of tornado season is just getting started--typically, only 17% of the season's activity has occurred by April 10. The number of strong (EF-2 and EF-3) tornadoes has been rather low so far; the Mapleton tornado was just the seventh EF-3 of 2011. There have been no violent EF-4 or EF-5 tornadoes so far this year. The death toll of just three so far in 2011 is remarkably low for mid-April, a testament to good warnings and a good helping of luck.

Jeff Masters

Cold in April (Railheel)
Hail, wind, and rain came through with unknow damage as of now. did break windshilds.
Cold in April
Tornado-damaged house (ChrisAnthemum)
Early Tuesday morning, a tornado raked along Ararat Road in Pilot Mountain, NC, damaging several houses and downing many trees. A cleanup crew was working on this one when we drove by on Sunday.
Tornado-damaged house

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 367 - 317

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Quoting RastaSteve:
If you dis like your insurance company then it's easy switch to someone else. We had Statefarm and let me tell you they cancelled our insurance because we have a beach house on the beach and didn't tell us about it. We found out because we tried to pay our bill and was notified that we were dropped because it's such high risk having an house on the beach.


Insurance is such a scam. They want your money, but the heck with you if something happens to your asset that you paid to have insured. No that goes to State Farms 1.8 billion dollar profit.

I just got screwed out of $15K on my vechicle because the refuse to total it. The accident wasn't my fault. They tell me it's still worth $23K, but the computer system, front axle, left driver's side door, and a 5 by 5 foot section of my car frame FROM ANOTHER CAR in a junk yard all had to be replaced. They refuse to test my transmission. They told me steel transmissions are undestructable. My car wouldn't shift gears after the accident. I am happy that this adjuster was telling me this over the phone, if I had been face to face with the SOB, I'd have assualt charges pressed on me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
362. DDR
FOR THE PERIOD TODAY UNTIL MIDNIGHT:
TRINIDAD,TOBAGO AND THE Windward Islands
Partly cloudy with isolated showers and the chance
of the isolated thundershower, becoming settled by
late afternoon to give a mostly fair night.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"HOUSTON (AP) - Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company%u2014$39.5 billion%u2014even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent. The 2006 profit topped Exxon Mobil's own previous record of $36.13 billion set in 2005."



Link

39.5 billion??? One Oil Company. Thats just for 2007. These numbers are there every year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
....aaahhhh....I just LOVE the sound of cannon fire in the morning...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

As I said yesterday, State Farm made a measly $1.8 billion in profit in 2010, and that's not much more than double their profit for 2009. How is a company supposed to make do on a lousy $4.93 million in daily profit? How can it possibly "remain viable in the marketplace" on a paltry profit of only $205,000 an hour? $3,400 a minute?

Thank God the state's insurance regulators saw fit to look out for State Farm. One shudders to think of what would happen without that 62% premium increase for owners of rental properties...


Funny you guys are talking about State Farm. I just got HOSED big time by this company. NEVER AGAIN will I get auto insurance from State Farm.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Great Information on here today.

I'm glad the storms sweeping into FL today look weaker.

Why are polititians afraid to raises taxes, but let gas prices flucutate wildly and crush our economy on a daily basis? Makes no sense to me.

They want to build houses to create jobs, but we have too many houses already... hence the drop in value. We need to stoke the green economy! PV farms are growing, but slowly.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 113 Comments: 1496
Quoting IKE:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. April 11 (BestWire) %u2014 Regulators approved a statewide average
18.8% increase for Florida homeowners insured by State Farm, less than what the
insurer, which is reducing its exposure in Florida, had sought.

While the
rate change is less than the 27.7% increase State Farm asked for, the approved
increase is an "important step to remain viable in this marketplace," State Farm
spokesman Michael Grimes said.

As I said yesterday, State Farm made a measly $1.8 billion in profit in 2010, and that's not much more than double their profit for 2009. How is a company supposed to make do on a lousy $4.93 million in daily profit? How can it possibly "remain viable in the marketplace" on a paltry profit of only $205,000 an hour? $3,400 a minute?

Thank God the state's insurance regulators saw fit to look out for State Farm. One shudders to think of what would happen without that 62% premium increase for owners of rental properties...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13274

Noting:-349. P451 and the other posts by same.

In order to do anything positive in this world it's necessary to separate 'reality from delusion,' I am so glad that You can post maps etc. which can be shown to the sceptical.
The main thing/problem with a food chain, is that its a CHAIN, and you can either break it or be part of it. you can break it on land with exclusion zones, from a human point of view but you can't break it at sea unless you built a waterproof wall round it, leaks are a problem and can't in this case be stopped.
Leaks are also going to be a problem on land as birds will fly and worms will crawl and caterpillars will turn to buterflys, most of these things will be eaten by anything from ants,locusts, etc. to birds which will be eaten etc.etc.Any broadleaf plants will collect this radiation and be instrumental in passing the radiation on just like the do with herbicides etc.

The problem is so massive that it cant easily be grasped and its not like Russia and the USA, these people have not got many places to go, Japan is a bit like California in size with 125 million people and they haven't got the rest of the USA to migrate to without question.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
post 346- P451

thank you, much better than I could've said it

g'morning dayshift
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OR be poor with a handful of kids so the Government can give you thousands of dollars annually.

I don't think that option should be mentioned in the same sentence as having a six figure income.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
353. IKE
5 day QPF....


Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
fuji #1 alittle soft lotus to break in a beautiful day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMiJOGiaaEY&NR=1&fe ature=fvwp
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
351. IKE
P451....that's exactly what Allstate told me years ago.....have a claim and we'll cancel you.

I agree the nation is collapsing financially. It just cost too much to live. You have to make six-figure money a year to have a chance OR be poor with a handful of kids so the Government can give you thousands of dollars annually.

................................................. .................................................. ..


I had .03 inches of rain last night! WOOHOO!
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
348. IKE
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. April 11 (BestWire) %u2014 Regulators approved a statewide average
18.8% increase for Florida homeowners insured by State Farm, less than what the
insurer, which is reducing its exposure in Florida, had sought.

While the
rate change is less than the 27.7% increase State Farm asked for, the approved
increase is an "important step to remain viable in this marketplace," State Farm
spokesman Michael Grimes said.

The amended rate filings are "reflective
of both a rate need by the company as well as cost-drivers in the system,"
Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said in a statement. "State Farm provided
actuarial support for these new rates through data submitted in their amended
rate filing, and through responses to Office questions during the public
hearings conducted on Feb. 15 in Tallahassee."

In a separate filing, the
Office of Insurance Regulation granted State Farm a statewide average 62%
increase for homes that are rented to others. State Farm had sought a 96%
average increase for its rental dwelling program.

The new rates will take
effect July 15 for renewals. The company currently has some 632,000 personal and
commercial residential insurance policies in Florida, Grimes said.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
Good morning,everybody :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like NOAA won't have to have rolling one month closures of NWS offices with the final budget agreement. Originally the Operations, Research, and Facilities budget was to be cut by $450 million. The final agreement cuts $115 million.

However

Originally there were no cuts to the Procurement, Acquisition and Construction budget, but now it is cut $849 million. However, this year the budget request was for an increase of $831 million for such programs as GOES-R and polar orbiting satellites.

Think it is safe to say we will never have a replacement for QUIKSCAT.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I keep thinking about these problems that they are experiencing over in Japan and I am now starting to believe that they really don't know what to do.
I cant see from an engineering point of view what can be done to stabilize the situation.They in 'my opinion' cant cover the place in concrete as it will still leak radiation etc to the sea as it is too close to it. Not like the Chernobyl situation a long way inland and the situation has not yet got anything like as bad as it can go.

Added to this there is the unknown but ominous presence of what now might be increasing earthquakes.
Today might bring all sorts of new nasty's.
Massive amounts of earth damping, {with neutron absorbers incorporated in it,} on top of it might help,to prevent particle release. remote controlled bulldozer of the Caterpillar D9s would be able to achieve this after a bit of controlled demolition of the ruined structures, then some sort of weatherproof cover but these things aren't going to cool down in a long time.

Imagine a situation like this if it had been created by the Aztecs and the US congress today was still working on a long term solution for it.Frightening!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
That 6.0 quake is 34 miles from Daiichi and 28 miles from Daiini, depth 6.6 miles.

Fairly strong quake to have that close. I don't imagine that has improved circumstances at the nuclear plants.

Edit: the earlier 6.6 in the same general area (the quake cluster) was 42 miles from Daiichi and 37 miles from Daiini, same depth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
According to the European news the Japan nuclear crisis is now at a level 7, equal to Chernobyl and to possibly make matters worse there has been an earthquake at magnitude 6.0 about 2 hours ago at a distance that seems to be only around 50 Kms. from the plant or around 35 miles.

The talk is now definitely of extending the exclusion zone to a 40 KM radius. So as many people have noted that's about 640,000 acres.

If you put the google map up for the coast and zoom in until roads can be seen on the satellite map, then scroll down and up the coast, you can see the extent of the damage and the types of farmland in the area to be lost.

Interesting what, post 327. Xyrus2000. Has to say about all the other types of energy related problems.
I would ask people only to consider what would happen if public opinion forced the closure of all nuclear plants as of say the end of the year.
Population levels might drop drastically inside of 12 months.
This is now a quandary and maybe needs a bit more than calculus to solution it.

6.0

2011/04/12 05:07:42

37.000

140.700

10.6

EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:
Who here agrees that theoretical Calculus and differential equations are the most mentally draining stuff in college? I mean I know some people actually like the stuff but that's an exception LOL.


The weirdest stuff seems to spurt out of my mouth after doing hours of the stuff. Maybe that's why us scientific people are often referred to as "mad" :)
sounds like fun lol. I have a few questions though..

Are you taking any classes directly related to meteorology, like a meterology 100 (whatever number) class? What other classes are you taking for your major? What type of degree are you going for?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer them all :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
327, Xyrus

The chances of death are low. But now that entire area surrounding the plant will have to basically be abandoned. How large of an area they finally decide on isn't known at the moment, but don't you find it disturbing that sections of our planet have to be literally abandoned?

The reason we dont see many deaths is because we limit exposure. However, to limit exposure we literally have to cut out sections of our earth and deem them unsafe. Unlike an oil spill, this stuff doesn't go away after a few years, it can take a century, or longer.


Many deaths? Probably not at all. Massive environmental disaster that will continue for many generations? Indeed.



That's the real problem with nuclear power plant disasters. The environment surrounding the plant is completely and fully devastated. Known to be unsafe for decades. Feared to be unsafe for centuries.


Unfortunately, as much as I oppose nuclear energy, we will see more plants in the future simply because our energy demands are only rising and renewables are not yet cheap enough.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Who here agrees that theoretical Calculus and differential equations are the most mentally draining stuff in college? I mean I know some people actually like the stuff but that's an exception LOL.


The weirdest stuff seems to spurt out of my mouth after doing hours of the stuff. Maybe that's why us scientific people are often referred to as "mad" :)
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 6867
327. Xyrus2000 11:25 PM EDT on April 11, 2011

The moral of the story is that present rates of energy consumption is unsustainable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The incalculable cost of nuclear power

Despite the Fukushima catastrophe, nuclear energy has green advocates. Low carbon it may be, but are they pricing it right?

George Monbiot caused quite a stir recently when he declared that the Fukushima Daiichi disaster had confirmed him as a supporter of nuclear power as part of the solution for reducing carbon emissions. But the costs and uncertainties of the industry cast serious doubt on the prospects for a nuclear renaissance.

Monbiot is not the first climate advocate to call for more nuclear power. Steward Brand, famous as publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog, has announced that he favours building more nuclear power because, as he puts it, "coal is so awful."

Such declarations are taken as evidence that environmentalists are becoming more hardheaded about energy economics. Monbiot complains that renewable energy advocates are using a double standard in assessing the economics, but nuclear power has never been able to stand on its own without government backup.

If the costs and benefits of nuclear power are so attractive, where are the investors? At least with wind and solar power, it is possible to see the cost curve dropping to the break-even point in the near future. Nuclear power, by contrast, may never be able to convince investors to put their money down without government guarantees.

The prospect of cost overruns, waste disposal and extended shutdowns are daunting enough. But mostly, it is the potential cost of catastrophic failure that scares away investors. Large-scale disasters, however rare, are colossally expensive, as well as dangerous. The first estimate of entombing the Fukushima plant is $12bn. And this doesn't include the other liabilities that could force the Japanese government to nationalise the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco).

Several years ago, I heard Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, say that commercial nuclear power won't be developed in the US without federal liability or financing guarantees. The risks, however remote, are so expensive that investors don't want to take them on, no matter what the return.

Monbiot, Brand and others rightly point to the heavy health and environmental costs of coal power. Researchers from Harvard recently published a study titled "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal" (pdf) that calculates the full health and environmental costs of coal power in the US to be $175bn to $523bn annually. The costs in China, with its lax or nonexistent health and environmental protections, may well be much higher. Reducing the use of coal is perhaps the single most important thing we can do to reduce air pollution and protect our climate.

The total costs of coal may be high, but the total costs of nuclear power are, in any meaningful sense, incalculable. Investors face cost overruns that could burn through even the deepest pockets. The true cost of waste disposal still is not known. The cost of decommissioning, even decades away, is also a big unknown. And the cost of catastrophic failure is more than a company as large as GE is willing to face. How can any investor calculate the return on investment with such large uncertainties?

And yet the cynics still assert that nuclear power is more practical than renewable energy. Renewable advocates are finding ways to promote solar and wind energy %u2013 without requiring the feed-in tariffs Monbiot cites as too expensive.

Looking at the bigger picture, I don't see why I or anyone should apologise for advocating developing energy resources that don't blow up and take their investors with them. The renewable energy advocates I work with are willing, and even eager, to discuss the full costs and benefits of all sources of energy. Supporters of nuclear power should be willing to hold themselves to the same standard.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting swampliliy:


Uncalled for and a mite lacking in the social skills.
And you thought I was kidding. LOL



Hey, xyrus
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
The agency believes the cumulative amount from the Fukushima plant is less than that from Chernobyl.


Just slightly better than the worst nuclear disaster of all time? Not to mention the questionable "believes," they throw in there. Thats not a confident answer at all.


XYRUS! WHERE ARE YOU?! Surely you can twist these words around to make it sound like this disaster is no disaster at all. And then proceed to lecture us on how nuclear energy is the better option because saving money is obviously far more important than potential environmental disasters which span the course of many generations and effect all that is living.


Bovine excrement.

At no point did I ever say that this wasn't a disaster. At no point did I say this wasn't serious. I have continuously, and repeatedly based my statements and observations on the available information about the situation instead of wild paranoid speculation, which is what several members of this community have been posting.

I have also never said that saving money is the primary goal of nuclear power, nor the primary reason for why nuclear power should be part of a national energy policy. In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense as nuclear energy isn't cheaper in the US. Even the WNA admits that nuclear is only price competitive in areas where there isn't easy access to fossil fuels.

You are also under the impression that somehow other forms of power don't cause multi-generational issues. Let's leave out climate change, since I know you don't like scientifically backed research. We'll just look at couple places you can visit right now and see what wonders other fuels can due to the environment.

Let's begin with Centralia, PA. An underground coal mine fire turned it from a quaint little town into toxic waste land. The fire's current size is about 400 acres and growing in all directions following the rich coal seams. Current estimates show that this fire will continue to burn for another 250-1000 years, turning anything that happens to be above into a superfund site. Not only that, but all the crap that comes from burning coal (radioactive minerals, heavy metals, etc) are seeping right into the water table. If you live near a coal plant, better hope it never catches fire cause the fly ash and other materials released by a coal fire will turn where you live into a disaster zone.

That's just one example. China is the current reigning champion of man-made coal fires. Many of these fires will burn for hundreds of years, causing wide spread devastation. And that's not even getting into the environmental damage caused by the mining operation itself. Just search for man-made coal fires for a list of places to visit.

Then we have oil. The process of refining is so pollution ridden and toxic that refineries are not allowed to be built close to any populated areas (ones that already exist are exempted). Why? Because a disaster at a refinery would most likely kill everything surrounding in short order. Such a disaster site would be uninhabitable for decades unless extreme measures were undertaken to remove the long lived chemical contaminants from the area. Refineries are just as heavily regulated (if not more so) than nuclear plants for exactly the same reason: Any serious disaster would cause widespread ecological destruction. Worse even. A toxic plume from an oil refinery will kill you a lot faster.

Or we could dive into the ecological destruction caused by tar sands or oil shale production. Nothing like turning turning hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land into waste to feed our energy needs. On the bright side, you could probably buy that land for pennies once they're through surface stripping.

So where were we? Ah yes, multi-generational disasters. Right. So lets compare the lethality. Comparing nuclear to fossil fuels over the span of history that nuclear power has been used (about 60 years or so) shows that fossil fuels are a veritable weapon of mass destruction, killing thousands upon thousands of people through pollution, mining, and related impacts. Nuclear power ranks down with solar an wind power for fatalities. Shall we compare pollution? Fossil fuel burning and refineries dump thousands of tons of toxic materials into the environment through land, water, and air having widespread effects across the globe, including ozone depletion, acid rain, and climate change. Nuclear energy? There have been two incidents of serious area contamination, and those have been relatively confined to small areas of the planet.

And let's talk about that contamination and the lethality thereof. It takes a cumulative dose of 1 Sv over the course of the year to change your LIFETIME likelihood of dying by cancer from norm of 14% to 19%. For comparison, your odds of dying from heart disease is 20%. And 1 Sv is A LOT of radiation.

Now, let's have some more perspective. Your odds of dying in a nuclear accident, even after Japan, stand at about 1 in 10,000,000. This happens to be the same as getting struck by lightning. So you are more likely to die from:

1. A terrorist attack (1 in 9,300,000).
2. Fireworks discharge (1 in 650,000)
3. Tornado (1 in 60,000)
4. Legal execution (1 in 58,000)
5. Toxic chemical exposure (pollution, toxic plume, etc) (1 in 32,000)
5. Electrocution (1 in 5,000)
6. Natural disaster (including tornado) (1 in 3,500)
7. Fire (1 in 1200)
8. Falling down (1 in 246)
9. Vehicle accident (1 in 100)
10. Accident around the home (1 in 36)

The risk of dying from a disease takes the top spots, with heart disease taking number one (1 in 5), cancer taking number two (1 in 7), and stroke at number 3 (1 in 23).

So how exactly is nuclear worse for the environment? Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude more lethal, cause far more widespread ecological damage, and is more than capable of contaminating or turning large areas into uninhabitable toxic waste land. And given the mortality statistics, you've got bigger problems to worry about than a nuclear disaster, even if you're in one. The lack of adequate food, shelter, and social order after such an incident is far more likely to kill you than the radiation will (like all those forgotten people left suffering in Japan while the collective American Idiots were out buying iodine pills).

Quite the contrary to your false accusation about my stance on nuclear power, the only thing fossils fuels have over nuclear is COST. In every other category nuclear wins, from mortality rates to pollution.

You've never let facts stand in your way before, and I doubt you'll start now. Believe whatever you want. But if you want toss around childish passive aggressive remarks, insults, and outright lies about what I've said then I'll be more than happy to let the moderators deal with it. In the meantime, until you have something constructive and useful to contribute, I think adding you to the ignore list will for while will probably be best.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Truck farming is labor intensive produce farming. Expression came from necessity to transport it to market (truck it) immediately after harvest as opposed to crop farming where the product can be stored prior to sale. Folks you see at farmers markets are "truck farmers".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 163 Comments: 52257
324. beell
Well, that's it for me, folks.
G'nite.

PS eddy12 - It can take several different forms. Barter, selling to a co-op, a roadside stand or to who ever wants to buy farm fresh vegetables.

Many different ways to get many different products to market on a small scale (usually).

You can also eat quite nicely on what you grow when times are tough or otherwise. Not sure of the marketing set-up in Japan.

Just different than a wheat farmer with 5,000-10,000 acres.

Someone else may have a better definition (Shen?)



MESOSCALE DISCUSSION 0420
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
1000 PM CDT MON APR 11 2011

AREAS AFFECTED...PARTS OF CNTRL/ERN GA

CONCERNING...SEVERE POTENTIAL...WATCH NEEDED SOON

VALID 120300Z - 120330Z

THE SQUALL LINE IS LIKELY WELL PAST PEAK...BUT WEAKENING PROBABLY
WILL BE SLOW ENOUGH...IN THE PRESENCE OF FAVORABLE LARGE-SCALE
FORCING AND SHEAR...THAT AT LEAST A CONTINUING RISK FOR DAMAGING
WINDS PERSIST WITH ACTIVITY AS IT SPREADS INTO CENTRAL GEORGIA
THROUGH THE 06-08Z TIME FRAME.

..KERR.. 04/12/2011
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 137 Comments: 15303
322. beell
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
Both Grandfathers were farmers. My Mother's family made it through the great depression by truck farming. Several cousins farm, # 1 son farms and runs an ag based small business.


Yes sir. Small truck farms are still an honorable way to live for a few.

Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 137 Comments: 15303
Japan ups nuke crisis severity to match Chernobyl
By YURI KAGEYAMA and RYAN NAKASHIMA, Associated Press 4 mins ago

TOKYO – Japan's nuclear regulators raised the severity level of the crisis at a stricken nuclear plant Tuesday to rank it on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

An official with the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, speaking on national television, said the rating was being raised from 5 to 7 — the highest level on the international scale.

The official, who was not named, said the amount of radiation leaking from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant was around 10 percent of the Chernobyl accident.

The level 7 signifies a "major accident" with "wider consequences" than the previous level, according to the standards scale.

"We have upgraded the severity level to 7 as the impact of radiation leaks has been widespread from the air, vegetables, tap water and the ocean," said Minoru Oogoda of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

NISA officials said one of the factors behind the decision was that the total amount of radioactive particles released into the atmosphere since the incident had reached levels that apply to a Level 7 incident.

The action lifts the rating to the highest on an international scale designed by an international group of experts in 1989 and is overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, a reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing a cloud of radiation over much of the Northern Hemisphere. A zone about 19 miles (30 kilometers) around the plant was declared uninhabitable, although some plant workers still live there for short periods and a few hundred other people have returned despite government encouragement to stay away.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


Remebered hearing a news acount or two of the truck farms wiped out by the tsunami. A different way of farming that is mainstream in Japan.

Googled "Truck Farms Fukushima Prefecture" after your post, lol!

or maybe...

In a former/farmer life, I was a Japanese Spinach Rancher...
Both Grandfathers were farmers. My Mother's family made it through the great depression by truck farming. Several cousins farm, # 1 son farms and runs an ag based small business.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
319. beell
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
Interesting how did you find it?


Remembered hearing a news acount or two of the truck farms wiped out by the tsunami. A different way of farming that is mainstream in Japan.

Googled "Truck Farms Fukushima Prefecture" after your post, lol!

or maybe...

In a former/farmer life, I was a Japanese Spinach Rancher...
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 137 Comments: 15303
Quoting RTLSNK:
No watches or warnings up for Macon, Ga yet.
Looks to be one of those 3 in the morning house calls. :(

Keep safe there, Snake.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:
Truck Farms in Fukushima Prefecture
(pg 227)

Japan in the 21st century: environment, economy - By Pradyumna Prasad Karan, Dick Gilbreath (2005)
Interesting how did you find it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 367 - 317

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.