Tsunami in Japan

[Niri Te]

Spoiler: US Earthquake-Hazard-Map

^2013

Spoiler: World

I clicked on the spoiler, and the blank screen for it loaded, but the U.S. map never did.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ma Niri Te, was that on your Chromebook? The map loaded just fine for me.

I find myself right on the edge of a '64+' zone, the highest rating on the chart. In my 13 years here, I have experienced a number of small quakes, the largest being a m4.7. I have had seismic monitors in my yard before, but the presence of a superhighway 400 feet away makes it a less-than-deal site. Nevertheless, I have given serious thought to installing my own instruments. In any case the area around Reno is the most seismically active in the State.

Ma Taronyu Leleioae, I looked up the data on the various plants you mentioned, especially Pilgrim Station (a BWR). Although this site certainly has a lower earthquake rating than many other sites, they are still looking at a core-damaging event only every 14,000 years. These plants are tough. They can take an amazing amount of seismic force. And as other have said, a really big earthquake in your region is highly unlikely, and so is a big tsunami.

What was sobering to read was that of the four or five nuclear plant construction projects in the US, only 1 was proceeding smoothly. All the new plants use PWR's, and several are using the new General Electric AP1000 design. This reactor is designed to be safe for up to 72 hours after a major accident, with no operator intervention.

Somewhere, I have pictures of the steam generator changeout at the Ginna Nuclear Plant outside of Rochester, NY. They brought in a 500 foot tall Lampson crane to change out the steam generators. I missed by one day a public tour of the containment building (an absolutely unheard-of event). For part of this event, they were letting children operate the Lampson crane!

[archaic]

Ma Taronyu Leleioae, are you really telling me that Boston's level of preparation for earthquake damage is comparable with that of, say, Los Angeles or Tokyo?

As to the generators, it's amazing they didn't make such things mandatory.  Further, with all the cable and power lines they put in, exactly how hard is it to create a remote power generator station to allow an 18 wheeler truck hauling a big generator, to roll up, hook up, and feed power through dedicated lines back to the power station?  This could be a relatively easy retro fit, but it's not considered economical.

Let me see, you may have minutes to react, the power lines may be out, the pumps may be submerged, the pipes maybe damaged. The the cooling relies basically on transferring heat to the ocean, the water intake/outlet may be damaged/blocked. The list of potential problems is near endless, would it not be far better to not build nuclear plants?

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Ma Taronyu Leleioae, are you really telling me that Boston's level of preparation for earthquake damage is comparable with that of, say, Los Angeles or Tokyo?

With regard to internal response plans and general documentation, generally yes especially after the massive "Big Dig" central artery construction.  That said, the "preparation" construction wise is no where near equal and is a major contributing factor that is being hidden.  Boston was built using unreinforced brick construction.  Further the foundations are not of the required designs with counter sway dampeners.  (Although CA is far ahead of Tokyo in that regard.)  With a BIG earthquake, it's the blue clay that's a major uncontrollable factor.  Part of the "Big Dig" (putting in new tunnels etc required much ground stabilization to help protect area buildings.  In part, this was contributing to the massive cost overruns.  It's certainly better than it was.
But as to the actual FEMA response and recovery plans, they have been a big focus the last 10+ years and involve many northeast assets.

As to the generators, it's amazing they didn't make such things mandatory.  Further, with all the cable and power lines they put in, exactly how hard is it to create a remote power generator station to allow an 18 wheeler truck hauling a big generator, to roll up, hook up, and feed power through dedicated lines back to the power station?  This could be a relatively easy retro fit, but it's not considered economical.

Let me see, you may have minutes to react, the power lines may be out, the pumps may be submerged, the pipes maybe damaged. The the cooling relies basically on transferring heat to the ocean, the water intake/outlet may be damaged/blocked. The list of potential problems is near endless, would it not be far better to not build nuclear plants?

You forget the mandatory battery backup systems.  And there are multiples.  But I agree it is better not to build.  Because of the danger of waste disposal and environmental impact.  The problem becomes "we" as a consumer do not want to pay for what we voraciously consume.  Oil is expensive and limited.  Solar again is not subsidized properly nor the technology protected to stay within the country, wind is blocked as a visual and audible nuisance.  We need something...  And 'EA is absolutely correct.  Technologically, the reactor designs have improved incredibly.  Modern military reactors do not even use primary control rods anymore.  Very responsive and much more reliable to control.  But nuclear facilities are not built nor owned by the people.  They are by investors (RDA) who only look to profit.  So in some ways, we really are getting what we pay for...

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

We do have to bear in mind there is a tangible price we have to pay for the comforts and conveniences we enjoy. Although I am doing what I reasonably can to consume less, I would certainly not be the better for not having readily available energy.

Ma TL, the 'big dig' was certainly an interesting project... A civil engineering 'wonder of the world'!

[archaic]

We do have to bear in mind there is a tangible price we have to pay for the comforts and conveniences we enjoy.

^^This!^^ Don't expect the costs to go down in real terms for the foreseeable future.

[Taronyu Leleioae]

Ma TL, the 'big dig' was certainly an interesting project... A civil engineering 'wonder of the world'!

Maybe a wonder of the world for the taxpayer...   

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Ma TL, the 'big dig' was certainly an interesting project... A civil engineering 'wonder of the world'!

Maybe a wonder of the world for the taxpayer...   

That, too.

[Niri Te]

 I just read something that was very interesting concerning the irradiated tuna from Japan, read the whole article.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/tale-of-the-tuna

[archaic]

Interesting, the Japanese diet is heavily fish/seafood orientated. I imagine they're going to be concerned by this.
Thanks for posting!

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Tremors has been felt across entire Japan after a 7.8 magnitude struck southeast of Japan. No reports of serious damage, causalties, no injuries and not been issued a tsunami warning.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32943904

[Vawmataw]

Tremors has been felt across entire Japan after a 7.8 magnitude struck southeast of Japan. No reports of serious damage, causalties, no injuries and not been issued a tsunami warning.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32943904

The epicenter seems to be in the land area. Otherwise, something wrong happened to the Earth.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

Tremors has been felt across entire Japan after a 7.8 magnitude struck southeast of Japan. No reports of serious damage, causalties, no injuries and not been issued a tsunami warning.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32943904

The epicenter seems to be in the land area. Otherwise, something wrong happened to the Earth.

Land? It was an underwater earthquake, as I heard.

[Vawmataw]

Then how isn't there any tsunami when Japan is surrounded with water? O.o

[Tìtstewan]

Then how isn't there any tsunami when Japan is surrounded with water? O.o

Because an earthquake does not neccessarily cause always a tsunami?
There were many earthquakes in history that haven't cause tsunamis.

[Vawmataw]

Then how isn't there any tsunami when Japan is surrounded with water? O.o

Because an earthquake does not neccessarily cause always a tsunami?
There were many earthquakes in history that haven't cause tsunamis.

So the waves didn't propagate (themselves)?

[Tìtstewan]

I think, there was a tsunami, but a 50cm wave isn't dangerous.
Big tsunamis mostly caused by massive move of rocks or strong vertical move of the sea ground like that big earthquake fron 2011.

[Vawmataw]

I think, there was a tsunami, but a 50cm wave isn't dangerous.

Oh, this. It makes sense now.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

This was an unusual quake, but not unusual for where it occurred. It is a 'deep focus' earthquake. There is a totally underwater subduction zone at this location, where the Pacific plate subducts beneath the Phillipine plate. This quake was deep (660 km) within the portion of the Pacific plate that has subducted beneath the Phillipine plate. You could think of this as the plate breaking up as it is resorbed into the earth. Because of its depth, there was little vertical shift on ocean floor, thus no tsunami. These deep focus quakes also tend to produce less damage (This one was rated 'very strong with moderate damage' at the surface, but there is nothing to speak of at the surface there.). They also tend to be felt over large areas. This is the third such deep focus quake to have occurred in this area in the last 100 years.

I thought I heard a slight shift or settling of the house last night, when it was very quiet. This would not be the first time I have noticed this after a distant strong earthquake.

[Tsanten Eywa 'eveng]

That's correct. I think maybe 2 years ago, or 3 years ago, a 8.5 magnitude(I could be wrong, it could be a 8.0) earthquake occured right south of Indonesia(Java). Didn't caused any tsunami. It all depends on the depth of the earthquake, and also how the tectonic plates are moving when it happens.