5.3-magnitude earthquake hits Japan's Fukushima

http://news.yahoo.com/-5-3-magnitude-earthquake-hits-japan-s-fukushima-184440374.html

by velodrome • 13 years ago

47 44 13 years ago

news.yahoo.com

tough neighborhood, is all I can say http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/japan-sits...

speeq• 13 years ago

"The region lies on the "Ring of Fire" — an arc of earthquake and volcanic zones that stretches around the Pacific Rim. About 90 percent of the world's quakes occur in the region." --

Who had the brilliant idea to build a nuclear power plant there... :\

jofer5• 13 years ago

To be fair, it's not like Japan has much of a choice. Nuclear really is their best option. Japan has only a couple of coal mines, and they've deliberately tried to avoid being entirely dependent on China for coal imports. This limits the use of coal power plants (not to mention environmental consequences). They have limited area, which limits hydropower options (though the steep topography partly makes up for that). Wind and solar are limited in their utility for "baseline" power.

The US has nuclear power plants on the "ring of fire" as well, for whatever it's worth (e.g. Diablo Canyon in CA, and I think there's one in Washington, as well).

toomuchtodo• 13 years ago

"Diablo Canyon 1, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 2?"

grey-area• 13 years ago

Wave power would be a good alternative to explore.

bitwize• 13 years ago

The entirety of Japan is pretty much on the Ring of Fire.

bhz• 13 years ago

It is now also home to a bunch of (already) leaky, radioactive, coolant water containers. Earthquakes are not going to improve their situation.

jofer5• 13 years ago

A lot of folks are probably wondering "why the heck would they put a nuclear power plant there?".

If you look at the distribution of Japan's nuclear power plants, they actually tried to put them in the safest areas: http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2011/NEWS-02.html

Where there are nuclear power plants along Japan's eastern coast (close to the subduction zones), they're mostly in the north.

Japan has two subduction zones. The Japan Trench in the north, where the Pacific plate subducts, and the Nankai Trough in the south where the Philippine Sea Plate subducts.

These two subduction zones are very different. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of earthquake behavior.

Before the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, we had never observed a magnitude 9 earthquake on a subduction zone like the Japan Trench in the north of Japan. (The Japan Trench usually has frequent magnitude 7's. Damaging but not devestating.) All of the previous magnitude 9's were on subduction zones similar to the Nankai Trough in southern Japan.

Furthermore, southern Japan has a 1300 year written historical record of large earthquakes and tsunamis occuring every ~200 years (they're not regular, but that's another story). The last two were in 1944 and 1946. In contrast, northern Japan has just as long of a record, but no records of very large earthquakes and tsunamis. (There's some sedimentological evidence of a very large tsunami in northern Japan ~2000 years ago, but prior to this, we assumed that it must have originated somewhere else.)

Therefore, southern Japan has the highest hazard for large tsunamis, and northern Japan has a much lower risk. Northern Japan's risk is now higher than we thought it was, but southern Japan is still more likely to have the next big tsunami.

Notice that there are very few nuclear power plans on the east coast of southern Japan. Instead they're on the west coast, away from the main tsunami hazard. That's why.

At any rate, the Tohoku earthquake really turned what we thought we know about very, very large earthquakes on its head.

afterburner• 13 years ago

Folks might be wondering that, but they might be wondering with a different emphasis:

"why the heck would they put a nuclear power plant there?"

Not sure what their power options were at the time it was built though.

timtadh• 13 years ago

Japan has very few natural energy resources which is the main reason they embraced nuclear power in a big way. Otherwise, they would have to import many more tons of hydrocarbons.

gtani• 13 years ago

That's a great summary. I remember having the first WTF of my life at around age 4 or 5, sitting in the ofuro in Tokyo (giant wooden bathtub) when a very minor temblor hit.

I used to keep up with research in the area, mostly from a friend who did time at the Lamont-Doherty lab in upstate New York. For people who like to dig into academic papers, some slightly watered down for general consumption but most not, their website is great

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/topics/earthquakes

NovemberWest6• 13 years ago

Wow, really? These questions are like criticism of people who live in flood zones. Yeah, we should all avoid water like the plague. We don't need it to drink or grow crops or foster basic transportation. Have you ever looked at a map of "disasters"? You cannot escape them. It is a case of pick your poison. Which type of risk scares you less?

Japan is a densely populated, urbanized, modern country. It requires substantial electricity. That electricity has to come from somewhere.

null_ptr3• 13 years ago

Nuclear disasters like the one at Fukushima affect the entire globe, not only Japan. If the country is geographically unfit for nuclear plants, then no nuclear plants should be built there, period. Otherwise the entire region's safety is compromised, not just Japan's.

NovemberWest6• 13 years ago

Have an upvote. However, I see no reason why Japan should put the needs of "the world" first. If you do not have energy security/self sufficiency, you do not have national security. America is endlessly criticized for sending soldiers to the Middle East. The world knows the real reason we did that is because we are highly dependent on foreign oil. Who would you like Japan to invade in place of having nuclear power?

grecy• 13 years ago

Should we say the same thing about countries that are too negligent to run a nuclear plant?

Who's going to police/enforce that? (I'm afraid to ask...)

aasarava• 13 years ago

Financial disasters like the one in the US in 2008 affect the entire globe, not only the US. If the country is morally unfit for advanced banking, then no advanced banking should occur there, period. ... ?

ggreer• 13 years ago

http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html has a good post on the actual danger of Fukushima. Pollution from other baseline sources like coal cause many more deaths than any nuclear accident.

When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly.

gizmo686• 13 years ago

Coal plants standard operation affects the entire globe. If a country cannot regulate the pollution of coal, then no coal plants should be built there.

hrktb• 13 years ago

I'll take the bait. Can Japan scrap all their remaining nuclear plants and just rely on the entire globe to cheaply bring it the power it needs to grow ?

To be serious, "[it] affect the entire globe" could be generalized to so many things from so many countries, from drug research to farming, fishing, industrial wastes etc. Having everyone put aside short sighted gains and be on the same page to do The Right Thing to reap long term benefits feels so utopian it's depressing.

It would be more realistic to push for more secure, better engineered, more efficient and reliable nuclear plants. Companies from all over the globe would get behind that.

pessimizer3• 13 years ago

You cannot escape them. It is a case of pick your poison.

This is the law of averages, and it is not a law, it is a flaw in the way people think.

No matter whether you think that you'll go when it's your time to go and not a second before, and that none of the decisions that you make will affect when that will happen - it's still more dangerous to live on the inside of an active volcano than on a plain in central Illinois, you shouldn't drive the wrong direction on the freeway, and you should always wear a helmet on your motorcycle, even during short trips.

NovemberWest6• 13 years ago

You seem to have chosen to intentionally misinterpret my remark. In Florida, hurricanes. In the plains, tornadoes. On the coast, tsunamis and flooding. On the west coast of the u.s., earthquakes. And if you eliminate forest fires, you a) increase the odds the next one will be far worse and b) interfere with the reproduction of some pine trees whose seeds need high heat to open.

Yes, your choices matter. No, there are no perfectly safe places anywhere.

jmadsen• 13 years ago

Match this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NRC_regions_and_plant_loc...

With this: http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/US-FAULT...

(for those who miss the significance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone

"The zone had four of the largest North American earthquakes in recorded history, with moment magnitudes estimated to be as large as 8.0," )

jofer5• 13 years ago

...Grumble, grumble... "Fault lines"...

This has absolutely noting to do with your very astute point, but I really wish the term "fault line" hadn't somehow wound up in popular culture.

Faults are never lines. They're irregular surfaces that sometimes form lines at their intersection with the earth's surface (they also sometimes form circles or don't intersect the surface at all).

...Okay, I'll stop ranting about things that only geologists care about...

nostromo• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

Diablo Canyon Power Plant is an electricity-generating nuclear power plant at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California.
It was built directly over a geological fault line, and is located near a second fault.

skelsey• 13 years ago

It's also built 80 feet above sea level.

5.3-magnitude earthquake hits Japan's Fukushima

Related Stories