Great Japan quake generates 8-foot tsunami in California

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

A great earthquake rocked the coast of Japan at 5:46 GMT on March 11, generating a dangerous tsunami that raced across the Pacific. The mighty earthquake was rated 8.9 on the Richter scale, making it the 7th most powerful tremor in world history. The world's 8th largest earthquake, a magnitude 8.8 event, hit Chile on February 27, 2010; never before have two top-ten earthquakes hit so close together in time. Today's quake was the strongest in Japanese history, and will likely be the most expensive natural disaster in world history, surpassing the $133+ billion dollar price tag from Hurricane Katrina.


Figure 1. Model-computed energy from the March 11, 2011 tsunami as visualized by the NOAA Visualization Lab.

In the U.S., the highest tsunami waves from the earthquake hit northern California and southern Oregon, with a wave height of 8.1 feet observed at Crescent City, CA, 8.6 feet at Port San Luis, CA, 8.7 feet at Arena Cove, CA, and 6.1 feet at Port Orford, OR. The tsunami swept four photographers out to sea in the Crescent City harbor, injuring three of them and leaving one missing. Extensive damage was done to the harbor and 35 boats. Up to $2 million in damage also occurred in the Santa Cruz harbor south of San Francisco.


Figure 2. Tide gauge at Crescent City, CA during the March 11, 2011 tsunami. The green line shows the height of the tsunami wave; the red line shows the observed water level. The highest tsunami wave came at at 17 UTC (9am PST), an hour and 10 minutes after the initial wave, and was 7 feet high. Image credit: NOAA.

Crescent City was hit by a devastating tsunami after the March 28, 1964 magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Alaska, which killed ten people in the city and destroyed much of the business district. The city is fortunate today that the tsunami hit at low tide, or else water levels would have been five feet higher in the city during the wave. The tide gauge at Crescent City, CA (Figure 2) shows that at least 18 separate tsunami waves have hit the harbor as of 2:45pm PST. The first wave came at about 15:50 UTC (7:50am PST), was about 2.5 feet high, and was not preceded by the ocean falling and water being sucked out to sea. After this initial wave, the ocean level dropped rapidly by 8 feet, and then a series of large waves began rushing in and out, with up to a 13 foot difference between low water and high water. The rapid speed of the in-rushing and outflowing waves were what did the damage to the harbor and its boats. The largest wave came at 17 UTC (9am PST), an hour and 10 minutes after the initial wave, and was 8.1 feet high. Fortunately, this wave came near the time of low tide, and the wave was only 2 feet above last night's high tide mark. Tidal range between low and high tide is about 5 feet at Crescent City. The tide is now rising, and new tsunami waves with height of 3 - 4 feet are still rushing in and out, with the one just before 21 UTC (1pm PST) reaching a height about 2 feet above high tide.


Figure 3. Propagation of the March 11, 2011 Honshu tsunami was computed with the NOAA forecast method using the MOST model with the tsunami source inferred from DART® data. From the NOAA Center for Tsunami Research, located at NOAA PMEL in Seattle, WA.

Portlight.org is mobilizing to provide financial assistance to people with disabilities affected by the disaster, and there will undoubtedly be a huge relief effort by numerous charities in the wake of the earthquake. Your financial contributions and prayers for those affected will be valuable.

Jeff Masters

Waves (Feather3)
During our tsunami warning that had been downgraded to an advisory, this afternoon. It was getting closer to high tide, but it was strange, watching the surges: one minute, the beach was bare, and within minutes, a surge would build up as wave after wave, low, but surging, would inundate the beaches....more shots to come.
Waves

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In 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: 987 - 937

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33Blog Index

Quoting Xyrus2000:


The don't use graphite. If they did, we'de already have a Chernobyl-like situation on our hands.

Plus, it's a serious breach of nuclear regulations to do so. Only a seriously sociopathic group of human slime would use graphite in this kind of reactor design after Chernobyl.

Did i say they used graphite, let me repeat again....


Fukushima nuclear plant does NOT have a combustible graphite core like Chernobyl. A total meltdown should flow into underground containment.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:

Please don't post that fallout map, it has been proven to be fake
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
2 conflicting Tweets

Fukushima nuclear plant does NOT have a combustible graphite core like Chernobyl. A total meltdown should flow into underground containment.

Nuclear safety authority: Any radiation from explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant will likely be blown out over Pacific


The don't use graphite. If they did, we'de already have a Chernobyl-like situation on our hands.

Plus, it's a serious breach of nuclear regulations to do so. Only a seriously sociopathic group of human slime would use graphite in this kind of reactor design after Chernobyl.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
2 conflicting Tweets

Fukushima nuclear plant does NOT have a combustible graphite core like Chernobyl. A total meltdown should flow into underground containment.

Nuclear safety authority: Any radiation from explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant will likely be blown out over Pacific
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


Thanks. I have a question. Please understand I am not questioning your knowledge or the truth of your words. I am trying to understand what you said.

Are we talking about two different kinds of gamma here? In other words, if the atmosphere absorbs gamma "rays," why worry about gamma "radiation" getting into, or being borne by Earth's atmosphere?

Isn't radioactive fallout going to be mostly gamma radiation? And we know radioactive fallout can have consequences-at least those of us who are old enough to remember the Cold War know this.

I'd appreciate anyone's attempt at enlightening me here.
:)


It's not the gamma radiation that is being transported, but gamma ray emitters. Small particles of nuclear materials (nuclear dust) will emit radiation depending on the material type. Plutonium is alpha emitter, cesium is a gamma emitter, and so on. The shorter the half-life of the material, the more radioactive it is.

The problem occurs when these particles accumulate and contaminate an area. This increases the risk of them being ingested or inhaled. Once inside the body, you no longer have the air or your skin or a wall of rock protecting you from radiation exposure. And as I mentioned, a lot of these fission by-products have a tendency to hang out in the body for quite some time, allowing them to do more damage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
the USGS has upgrade too 9.0


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting alfabob:


Well since the power is derived from the heat emitted by free neutrons colliding with the water, then there must be more free neutrons in general. Obviously any volume of fuel regardless of type has a limited amount of neutrons which will undergo reactions. Thus the only thing which would affect the ratio of fuel versus energy output is efficiency; but there's not much you can do besides engineering the turbines differently and perhaps overall energy flow. So in general that ratio holds true. From what I saw it looked like the entire outer containment was blown off; and without a look at the actual core, I wouldn't doubt that the extreme pressure came from a rupture when they were attempting to avoid complete meltdown when the rods went critical. So it is possible that the materials were already vaporized into the atmosphere.


Unfortunately, the reactor design they used has no "outer containment" wall. Unlike the TMI design which had a secondary containment dome, the Japanese reactor only has one containment vessel.

The explosion this morning was most likely a result from steam pressure and possibly hydrogen build up from the overheating core. The containment vessel is still intact (you'd know if it wasn't, because it would make a damn pretty light).

I'm not sure what you mean by "already vaporized into the atmosphere". If you're talking about the nuclear materials, then no they wouldn't be. Even in a full open air breach with a raging graphite fire, only a small part of the corium was vaporized and distributed from Chernobyl. Most of it just melted through the floor and eventually cooled off.

It doesn't take much to cause significant contamination, but there's no way the entire fuel load vaporized.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Unlikely this would work. Gamma radiation is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, so unless there was a MAJOR burst of gamma radiation it is unlikely it would see anything. That's assuming it didn't get blinded by all the other gamma radiation happening due to cosmic bombardments at the top of our atmosphere, the solar wind, etc. in the process.

The real danger from radiation isn't external exposure, but internal exposure. Radiation such as alpha, beta, and gamma radiation don't really travel that far from their source as they react with pretty much anything that gets in their way. In fact, alpha radiation isn't even a danger as a piece of paper or your skin is capable of stopping it. However, if you happen to ingest an alpha emitter you can have some problems. Once a radioactive material is inside the body it can cause all sorts of issues , and most of them hang around for quite some time, especially elements like cesium which can replace sodium and potassium in normal biological processes.

That's not to say there is nothing to worry about when it comes to external exposure. Beta and gamma radiation are capable of penetrating to internal organs, so high enough doses will definitely make you unhappy. But death from external exposure is really hard to accomplish unless you're near the source of radiation. For example, despite the size of the Chernobyl disaster, the only people who died from direct external exposure were those souls unfortunate enough to have gone near the core while it burned (emergency personnel and plant employees).


Thanks. I have a question. Please understand I am not questioning your knowledge or the truth of your words. I am trying to understand what you said.

Are we talking about two different kinds of gamma here? In other words, if the atmosphere absorbs gamma "rays," why worry about gamma "radiation" getting into, or being borne by, Earth's atmosphere?

Isn't radioactive fallout going to be mostly gamma radiation? And we know radioactive fallout can have consequences-at least those of us who are old enough to remember the Cold War know this.

I'd appreciate anyone's attempt at enlightening me here.
:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
978. flsky
So many if-then scenarios playing out right now, it's hard to keep track.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


I really don't know anything more than what reading I've done today, but what you say makes sense. I wonder if the powers that be have thought of using the Gamma ray telescope. Maybe turning and looking back through Earth's atmosphere would be somehow prohibitive. Who knows? Good thought.


Unlikely this would work. Gamma radiation is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, so unless there was a MAJOR burst of gamma radiation it is unlikely it would see anything. That's assuming it didn't get blinded by all the other gamma radiation happening due to cosmic bombardments at the top of our atmosphere, the solar wind, etc. in the process.

The real danger from radiation isn't external exposure, but internal exposure. Radiation such as alpha, beta, and gamma radiation don't really travel that far from their source as they react with pretty much anything that gets in their way. In fact, alpha radiation isn't even a danger as a piece of paper or your skin is capable of stopping it. However, if you happen to ingest an alpha emitter you can have some problems. Once a radioactive material is inside the body it can cause all sorts of issues , and most of them hang around for quite some time, especially elements like cesium which can replace sodium and potassium in normal biological processes.

That's not to say there is nothing to worry about when it comes to external exposure. Beta and gamma radiation are capable of penetrating to internal organs, so high enough doses will definitely make you unhappy. But death from external exposure is really hard to accomplish unless you're near the source of radiation. For example, despite the size of the Chernobyl disaster, the only people who died from direct external exposure were those souls unfortunate enough to have gone near the core while it burned (emergency personnel and plant employees).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Expected health effects assuming the cumulative total radiation exposure was all received within a week.


TOTAL EXPOSURE ONSET & DURATION OF INITIAL SYMPTOMS & DISPOSITION

30 to 70 R From 6-12 hours: none to slight incidence of transient headache and nausea;
vomiting in up to 5 percent of personnel in upper part of dose range. Mild
lymphocyte depression within 24 hours. Full recovery expected.

70 to 150 R From 2-20 hours: transient mild nausea and vomiting in 5 to 30 percent of
personnel. Potential for delayed traumatic and surgical wound healing,
minimal clinical effect. Moderate drop in lymphocycte, platelet, and
granulocyte counts. Increased susceptibility to opportunistic pathogens.
Full recovery expected.

150 to 300 R From 2 hours to three days: transient to moderate nausea and vomiting in
20 to 70 percent; mild to moderate fatigability and weakness in 25 to 60
percent of personnel. At 3 to 5 weeks: medical care required for 10 to 50%.
At high end of range, death may occur to maximum 10%. Anticipated medical
problems include infection, bleeding, and fever. Wounding or burns will
geometrically increase morbidity and mortality.

300 to 530 R From 2 hours to three days: transient to moderate nausea and vomiting in 50
to 90 percent; mild to moderate fatigability in 50 to 90 percent of personnel.
At 2 to 5 weeks: medical care required for 10 to 80%. At low end of range,
less than 10% deaths; at high end, death may occur for more than 50%.
Anticipated medical problems include frequent diarrheal stools, anorexia,
increased fluid loss, ulceration. Increased infection susceptibility during
immunocompromised time-frame. Moderate to severe loss of lymphocytes.
Hair loss after 14 days.

530 to 830 R From 2 hours to two days: moderate to severe nausea and vomiting in 80 to
100 percent of personnel; From 2 hours to six weeks: moderate to severe
fatigability and weakness in 90 to 100 percent of personnel. At 10 days to
5 weeks: medical care required for 50 to 100%. At low end of range, death
may occur for more than 50% at six weeks. At high end, death may occur
for 99% of personnel. Anticipated medical problems include developing
pathogenic and opportunistic infections, bleeding, fever, loss of appetite,
GI ulcerations, bloody diarrhea, severe fluid and electrolyte shifts, capillary
leak, hypotension. Combined with any significant physical trauma, survival
rates will approach zero.

830 R Plus From 30 minutes to 2 days: severe nausea, vomiting, fatigability, weakness,
dizziness, and disorientation; moderate to severe fluid imbalance and headache.
Bone marrow total depletion within days. CNS symptoms are predominant at
higher radiation levels. Few, if any, survivors even with aggressive and
immediate medical attention.



Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Study warns of 500-mile radiation spread
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:


Where is the hot debate in the blog about fossil fuels vs. Nuclear energy?? Some weeks ago that was the hot debate here...

Considering Japan as a highly advanced society and the role it plays for the world as a model to implement...
The question is: Is it really advanced? Is this really the road every country should take; Is this the best answer to our social energy needs?


Answers:Depends on what you're comparing, most likely, and yes.

Perspective is key here. For our current technology the power output vs. ecological footprint vs. human deaths comparison still favors nuclear power by a significant margin.

What we need to STOP doing is leaving ancient reactors with known flaws running in areas that are susceptible to cataclysms. Or running at all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Thundercloud01221991:
what are the probabilities you all think that this will actually go to complete meltdown?


It's non-zero, but everything is just speculation at this point. And even if it did as long as the containment system remains in place there isn't much to worry about as most of the material will remain relatively contained to a local area.

If it does reach meltdown, best case scenario is for the corium to melt through the floor of the reactor into bedrock where there is no water table. The heat will melt the rock and turn it into a sarcophagus for the corium slag. This would keep the contamination highly localized and easier to manage.

Worst case, there is a large pool of easily vaporized/combustible material sitting under the reactor or inside the reactor chamber. If the corium lava hits this pool at a fast enough rate, then the venting won't be able to keep up with the pressure and the containment vessel will fail. Depending on several factors, that could result in minor plume or become a raging inferno akin to Chernobyl and spread contamination far and wide. This is an unlikely scenario.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's one.

Japan's recent massive earthquake, one of the largest ever recorded, appears to have moved the island by about eight feet (2.4 meters), the US Geological Survey said.

"That's a reasonable number," USGS seismologist Paul Earle told AFP. "Eight feet, that's certainly going to be in the ballpark."
...
Kenneth Hudnut, a USGS geophysicist, said experts read data including from global positioning systems to determine the extend of the shift.

"We know that one GPS station moved (eight feet), and we have seen a map from GSI (Geospatial Information Authority) in Japan showing the pattern of shift over a large area is consistent with about that much shift of the land mass," he told CNN.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeq M5jD4grYzpCUcbInAhd32dFS9TcooQ?docId=CNG.bd57fdfba e452af0d2b556455b5b59ec.191
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting listenerVT:



Thanks!
Got link?

10" sure is a lot!
CNN says it was 10cm or 4".

(I may be a little behind on info;
just got home from a funeral.)
Ehh, I cannot find one atm with the 25 cm, might have been off when I was it yesterday. Probably 10 cm...

The shifted 8 feet east is all over. Hit google news...

Some are saying that some parts of Japan moved 12 feet east. Other areas, not as much.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting listenerVT:
Did you hear that the earthquake moved the island of Japan 8 feet
and moved the Earth's axis 4 inches...!?!

Read that and more here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan .earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html?hpt=T1

If anyone hears which way the island and the axis got moved, do say.


Yes, that is correct. But even more ominous is that it seems that parts of Japan are now lower than they were before. Those parts still have water on them. It's been confounding certain experts as to why the water is still pooling in certain areas, but the reality is, Japan has changed forever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:


25 cm, of course.
lol. Oops.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting alfabob:


An explosion would be the result of pressure building up before it ruptures, but I'm guessing they would just continue to vent it if that happened. If the boron fails to absorb the extra neutrons being produced in the nuclear reaction, then the entire thing will become extremely hot. Pretty much a similar kind of reaction occurs in a nuclear bomb, but those are designed for extremely fast chain reactions. This would most likely only cause the containment to breach leaking toxic/radioactive chemicals into the environment, or explode if the pressure builds too high.

Honestly, depending on how much nuclear material is used in each core, this has a possibility of being worse than Chernobyl. You don't get 100x the power without 100x the fuel.


It would end up turning into corium lava and start melting through the reactor. Maximum temperature isn't maintained for very long as the reaction takes place much quicker. It also depends on how the material disburses. If it pools, it stays hotter longer. If it spreads out, it cools quicker as there is less close contact nuclear material to sustain the reaction.

Unless there is a big pool of material waiting to be spontaneously vaporized/combusted sitting underneath the reactor, then this is NOT going to be worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl had it's containment vessel blown apart with the core open to the atmosphere being made worse by a massive graphite fire. Those two factors combined to create a massive radioactive plume which distributed radioactive material over a wide area.

And you can get 100x the power without 100x the fuel. Better efficiency and better fuel can give a much better power yield.





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:


25 cm, of course.


Good catch. Somehow I read it as cm anyway! Ha!
km would just make my head go boom. ;-D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


So what does this mean for someone like myself in California?


Not sure, I'm not knowledgeable in the nuclear field. I would imagine that the effects would be based on the quantity of release which, atm, is quite minimal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is 10 cm, approx 4"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
this is one subject that i have little knowledge of and really depend on others for the education. Thanks!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Moved east, according to USGS person quoted all over the place yesterday.
Axis moved 25 km or 10 inches.



Thanks!
Got link?

10" sure is a lot!
CNN says it was 10cm or 4".

(I may be a little behind on info;
just got home from a funeral.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CyclonicVoyage:
Darned news people and their wording.

2 total reactors face meltdown, not 3. #1 & #3 reactors.


To say "2 other reactors" means there's another, #1 that's been known for a while now. CNN should have said 2 reactors.


So what does this mean for someone like myself in California?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting listenerVT:
Did you hear that the earthquake moved the island of Japan 8 feet
and moved the Earth's axis 4 inches...!?!

Read that and more here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan .earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html?hpt=T1

If anyone hears which way the island and the axis got moved, do say.
Moved east, according to USGS person quoted all over the place yesterday.
Axis moved 25 km or 10 inches.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Darned news people and their wording.

2 total reactors face meltdown, not 3. #1 & #3 reactors.


To say "2 other reactors" means there's another, #1 that's been known for a while now. CNN should have said 2 reactors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Stepping off into what I know very little about...

The "radiation" in this scenario is gamma ray wavelength, is it not?

It behaves just as our usual subject matter of UV, visible, or IR.

So, I wonder if the gamma ray satellites are sensitive enough at the right frequencies to detect the same from earth and/or atmospheric aerosols, rather than from the cosmos. And if there isn't too much background radiation to actually track a thick enough plume from Japan. Of course, they would have to have the ability to turn around and look nadir.

Satellites such as this one: http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Seems like a very long shot, but...


I really don't know anything more than what reading I've done today, but what you say makes sense. I wonder if the powers that be have thought of using the Gamma ray telescope. Maybe turning and looking back through Earth's atmosphere would be somehow prohibitive. Who knows? Good thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnTucker:
So before I sign out any fallout would probably be significantly less and less aerosol-ized then Chernobyl. It would however probably be more toxic and concentrated.


We have none of such yet. We cannot discern the impact without the impact-er. Let's hope we don't have to do so. I anticipate that sea water will help us. Last resort..........Think positive.............
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
Japanese Government Confirms Meltdown

Japan%u2019s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said March 12 that the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core, Japanese daily Nikkei reported. This statement seemed somewhat at odds with Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano%u2019s comments earlier March 12, in which he said %u201Cthe walls of the building containing the reactor were destroyed, meaning that the metal container encasing the reactor did not explode.%u201D

NISA%u2019s statement is significant because it is the government agency that reports to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NISA works in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission. Its role is to provide oversight to the industry and is responsible for signing off construction of new plants, among other things. It has been criticized for approving nuclear plants on geological fault lines and for an alleged conflict of interest in regulating the nuclear sector. It was NISA that issued the order for the opening of the valve to release pressure %u2014 and thus allegedly some radiation %u2014 from the Fukushima power plant.

NISA has also overseen the entire government response to the nuclear reactor problems following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is difficult to determine at this point whether the NISA statement is accurate, as the Nikkei report has not been corroborated by others. It is also not clear from the context whether NISA is stating the conclusions of an official assessment or simply making a statement. However, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, also said that although it had relieved pressure, nevertheless some nuclear fuel had melted and further action was necessary to contain the pressure.

If this report is accurate, it would not be the first time statements by NISA and Edano have diverged. When Edano earlier claimed that radiation levels had fallen at the site after the depressurization efforts, NISA claimed they had risen due to the release of radioactive vapors.






in all seriousness, that's exactly what I didn't want to hear. God damn it



Nuclear power as a replacement for our primary source of energy (replacing oil) needs to be reconsidered. Although Oil Spills are terrible for the environment, nuclear power plant accidents are FAR worse.

Solar, wind, tide, and geothermal all have their issues still. However, nuclear power plant disasters are just..just ridiculous. Potential for total destruction of life.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
0419: Possible fusion in two reactors - AFP, quoting government
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Did you hear that the earthquake moved the island of Japan 8 feet
and moved the Earth's axis 4 inches...!?!

Read that and more here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan .earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html?hpt=T1

If anyone hears which way the island and the axis got moved, do say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
Just keeps going! Why?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsw w/Quakes/quakes_big.php

Because it is not finished?

Too much energy in too short of time. I don't like it, again. Think about the plate, something has to give, somewhere.........


I agree a release of such energy there must have built up more energy somewhere else one would think.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
950. Skyepony (Mod)
Is that it on visible?... The sun came up.. slow this down & zoom in just NE of the lake. Here's Fukushima on a map for reference.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Authorities presuming meltdowns may be under way at 2 other reactors.

That's in addition to number 1.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just keeps going! Why?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsw w/Quakes/quakes_big.php

Because it is not finished?

Too much energy in too short of time. I don't like it, again. Think about the plate, something has to give, somewhere.........
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
0406: More on the specific dangers of Fukushima 1 plant's reactor 3: The BBC's Chris Hogg in Toky says the reactor is fuelled with uranium and plutonium, meaning the consequences of a meltdown are much more severe than at the other reactors.

Just keeps getting better. "Minor steam explosion" indeed...
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
0352: The news coming from Japan remains bleak. Government spokesman Yukio Edano: "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred - it is inside the reactor, we can't see. However, we are acting, assuming that a meltdown has occurred and with reactor number 3 we are also assuming the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."


OUCH!
Quoting AussieStorm:
Japanese Government Confirms Meltdown

Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said March 12 that the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core, Japanese daily Nikkei reported. This statement seemed somewhat at odds with Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano’s comments earlier March 12, in which he said “the walls of the building containing the reactor were destroyed, meaning that the metal container encasing the reactor did not explode.”

NISA’s statement is significant because it is the government agency that reports to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NISA works in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission. Its role is to provide oversight to the industry and is responsible for signing off construction of new plants, among other things. It has been criticized for approving nuclear plants on geological fault lines and for an alleged conflict of interest in regulating the nuclear sector. It was NISA that issued the order for the opening of the valve to release pressure — and thus allegedly some radiation — from the Fukushima power plant.

NISA has also overseen the entire government response to the nuclear reactor problems following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is difficult to determine at this point whether the NISA statement is accurate, as the Nikkei report has not been corroborated by others. It is also not clear from the context whether NISA is stating the conclusions of an official assessment or simply making a statement. However, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, also said that although it had relieved pressure, nevertheless some nuclear fuel had melted and further action was necessary to contain the pressure.

If this report is accurate, it would not be the first time statements by NISA and Edano have diverged. When Edano earlier claimed that radiation levels had fallen at the site after the depressurization efforts, NISA claimed they had risen due to the release of radioactive vapors.


Getting more serious it sounds by the minute.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


Looks fairly normal to me. They constantly have tremors, most not even felt. I could easily be wrong though.


I suppose the ones in the Gulf of California are more alarming to me. All occurred in the last week, with the latest being within the last hour.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:
So this trajectory, though it's the actual observation, would be the real observed fallout path, if it had been released on march 10?



It's beginning to sink in just how serious this could be. Thanks for the new post, Dr. Masters.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Japanese Government Confirms Meltdown

Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said March 12 that the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core, Japanese daily Nikkei reported. This statement seemed somewhat at odds with Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano’s comments earlier March 12, in which he said “the walls of the building containing the reactor were destroyed, meaning that the metal container encasing the reactor did not explode.”

NISA’s statement is significant because it is the government agency that reports to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NISA works in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission. Its role is to provide oversight to the industry and is responsible for signing off construction of new plants, among other things. It has been criticized for approving nuclear plants on geological fault lines and for an alleged conflict of interest in regulating the nuclear sector. It was NISA that issued the order for the opening of the valve to release pressure — and thus allegedly some radiation — from the Fukushima power plant.

NISA has also overseen the entire government response to the nuclear reactor problems following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is difficult to determine at this point whether the NISA statement is accurate, as the Nikkei report has not been corroborated by others. It is also not clear from the context whether NISA is stating the conclusions of an official assessment or simply making a statement. However, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, also said that although it had relieved pressure, nevertheless some nuclear fuel had melted and further action was necessary to contain the pressure.

If this report is accurate, it would not be the first time statements by NISA and Edano have diverged. When Edano earlier claimed that radiation levels had fallen at the site after the depressurization efforts, NISA claimed they had risen due to the release of radioactive vapors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SquallyWx:


Earthquake activity. I always feel uneasy about activity after a big quake in another part of the world.


Looks fairly normal to me. They constantly have tremors, most not even felt. I could easily be wrong though.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
0352: The news coming from Japan remains bleak. Government spokesman Yukio Edano: "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred - it is inside the reactor, we can't see. However, we are acting, assuming that a meltdown has occurred and with reactor number 3 we are also assuming the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting SquallyWx:
Has anyone noticed the activity in the Gulf of California and in California itself?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnTucker:
There is no applicable fallout now, there is not likely to be unless the cores are exposed to the atmosphere, and japan is HUGE.

Our troops can handle a fallout situation anyway. Japan will be able to deal with it much better with us there. It certainly isn't the first time.
? It's a little smaller than California by sq miles. Huge? Not quite China or Russia huge. Maybe not-tiny would be a better size description?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 987 - 937

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™

About

Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
30 °F
Mostly Cloudy

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Storm on the Amalfi Coast
Vesuvius view
Snow on the trail to Vesuvius
The mists of Iceland