8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lacy33
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earthquake Japan
Click For Summary
An 8.9 magnitude earthquake struck near the east coast of Honshu, Japan, triggering tsunami warnings and resulting in significant destruction, including a reported 10-meter wave hitting Sendai. Initial reports indicate at least 200 to 300 bodies were found in the northeastern coastal city, with the death toll expected to rise. The earthquake caused issues at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, prompting evacuations and concerns over cooling system failures, though officials stated there was no radiation leak. The tsunami is projected to affect areas across the Pacific, with warnings issued for the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii. The situation remains critical as aftershocks continue and rescue efforts are underway.
  • #511
Astronuc said:
As far as I know, the book doesn't cover the situation after they lose EDGs and emergency power supply. Now they are outside of their emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and more or less flying by the seat of their pants.

That's becoming pretty obvious. Yet, TEPCO is pretty persistent that they're capable of handling this problem themselves - to the point they're not even willing to share much info on what's actually happening at the facility.

One thing that's bothered me is that they can't run their normal cooling system because of lack of power for their pumps, but they were able to pump in seawater?

Or is it that they don't have the power necessary to run the condensers to cool the water in the closed system, so have to find water from an open system to cool the system indirectly (externally instead of internally), which is a lot less effective.

Or is the seawater a passive system that can only be used for a short term problem (since there's no way to pump the water back out to the sea)?

After a week, they still haven't provided enough information to even know what they've actually done.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #512
BobG said:
That's becoming pretty obvious. Yet, TEPCO is pretty persistent that they're capable of handling this problem themselves - to the point they're not even willing to share much info on what's actually happening at the facility.

One thing that's bothered me is that they can't run their normal cooling system because of lack of power for their pumps, but they were able to pump in seawater?

Or is it that they don't have the power necessary to run the condensers to cool the water in the closed system, so have to find water from an open system to cool the system indirectly (externally instead of internally), which is a lot less effective.

Or is the seawater a passive system that can only be used for a short term problem (since there's no way to pump the water back out to the sea)?

After a week, they still haven't provided enough information to even know what they've actually done.
The problem is lack of information.

I expect the seawater pumps are small and are being run by portable power generators that were brought in. I heard 'fire hoses' mentioned, but I don't understand the context. I don't really know where the seawater is being introduced, or at what rate.

The physics is just about match flow rate with heat generation rate - matching them so the water in the core doesn't get too hot.

I don't know how open the primary system is - in other words, besides the steam coming off - is there water 'leaving' containment? Is it going into the ocean?

There is a mass balance (a la continuity equation). If Δm or dm/dt in the system = 0, if dm (water)/dt = dm (steam), then there's no net gain/loss of water in the system, and steam is coming out with activity. If dm (seawater)/dt > dm (steam), but Δm = 0 in the primary system/containment, where is the water going? The ocean?

Has the inflow of water to the cores in the RPV been sufficient to cool the fuel? Has the water inflow into containment been sufficient?

The what about the spent fuel pools - particularly the one in Unit 4?
 
  • #513
IMP said:
Here is an interesting timelapse of the quake and the aftershocks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42037498/ns/world_news-asia-pacific/

Thank you IMP. I was looking for that.

I just tried to explain what was going on in the video to a couple of people. One ran away, the other person changed the subject, and mentioned that he took two terms of geology, and kind of understood how certain rocks were formed.

The scale of plate tectonics compared to a single meat puppet is a bit daunting I suppose.

300px-Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif
 
  • #514
OmCheeto said:
The scale of plate tectonics compared to a single meat puppet is a bit daunting I suppose.

300px-Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif
It's a big ol' world out there. Or under there as the case may be.

What really gets at me is some of the jokes people are making about this.

For instance, one person claims that it's a scam because everything looks fine on google streetview. I think that was meant as an ironic joke.
I also heard some people saying that the earthquake was karma getting a japan for the attack at pearl harbour. Which makes no sense.

I guess some people find it amusing.
 
  • #515
Lancelot59 said:
It's a big ol' world out there. Or under there as the case may be.

What really gets at me is some of the jokes people are making about this.

For instance, one person claims that it's a scam because everything looks fine on google streetview. I think that was meant as an ironic joke.
I also heard some people saying that the earthquake was karma getting a japan for the attack at pearl harbour. Which makes no sense.

I guess some people find it amusing.

Thankfully those who hold such opinions are in the extreme minority, extrapolating from the circle of people I associate with. Such attitudes sicken me.
 
  • #516
Lancelot59 said:
I also heard some people saying that the earthquake was karma getting a japan for the attack at pearl harbour. Which makes no sense.
Wait, what??!
 
  • #517
Lancelot59 said:
What really gets at me is some of the jokes people are making about this.

For instance, one person claims that it's a scam because everything looks fine on google streetview. I think that was meant as an ironic joke.
I also heard some people saying that the earthquake was karma getting a japan for the attack at pearl harbour. Which makes no sense.

I guess some people find it amusing.

People have strange ways of relieving stress. One way is to cry, the other way is to laugh.

I think there are about 300 people of Japanese ethnicity where I work. (There are around 15,000 total). For the last few days, I've noticed the Japanese people a bit more than usual.

For some reason, I just want to go up and hug them. But I'm sure they would feel uncomfortable, so I don't.

I would hope though, that, they remember that we all, or at least I do, get by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmgn5U
 
  • #518
lisab said:
Thankfully those who hold such opinions are in the extreme minority, extrapolating from the circle of people I associate with. Such attitudes sicken me.
Same here. It's funny in the same say a dead baby joke is funny.
jhae2.718 said:
Wait, what??!
Yeah, I know. The reason the logic falls through is because Pearl Harbour was a military installation, and the US destroyed two major cities with a vast civilian population using nuclear devices.

Moving on though, how are they flying supplies in? The main airport if I remember correctly was built on a man made island.
 
  • #519
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #520
Lancelot59 said:
Same here. It's funny in the same say a dead baby joke is funny.

Yeah, I know. The reason the logic falls through is because Pearl Harbour was a military installation, and the US destroyed two major cities with a vast civilian population using nuclear devices.

Moving on though, how are they flying supplies in? The main airport if I remember correctly was built on a man made island.

Most Japanese airports are now open.

http://www.aeroclix.com/2011/03/16/most-of-japan%E2%80%99s-airports-reopen-after-9-0-earthquake/

Immediately after the quake, inbound commercial planes were allowed to land at a U. S. Air Force Base.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #521
Astronuc said:
The problem is lack of information.

I expect the seawater pumps are small and are being run by portable power generators that were brought in. I heard 'fire hoses' mentioned, but I don't understand the context. I don't really know where the seawater is being introduced, or at what rate.

The physics is just about match flow rate with heat generation rate - matching them so the water in the core doesn't get too hot.

I don't know how open the primary system is - in other words, besides the steam coming off - is there water 'leaving' containment? Is it going into the ocean?

There is a mass balance (a la continuity equation). If Δm or dm/dt in the system = 0, if dm (water)/dt = dm (steam), then there's no net gain/loss of water in the system, and steam is coming out with activity. If dm (seawater)/dt > dm (steam), but Δm = 0 in the primary system/containment, where is the water going? The ocean?

Has the inflow of water to the cores in the RPV been sufficient to cool the fuel? Has the water inflow into containment been sufficient?

The what about the spent fuel pools - particularly the one in Unit 4?

In the absence of a working heat exchange system, what other (cooling) option is there except a constant water replacement capability?
 
  • #522
A good article on why plan B so often fails to work - not just in the case of Fukushima's nuclear facility, but in so many other areas, as well.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/03/why-plan-b-often-works-out-badly.html

This part is particularly true:

One terrible irony of risk management is the better you do, the more your techniques will come under attack, Kabay said. The longer we go without a dangerous nuclear event, the more safety engineers are accused of overspending.

"The better precautionary measures do, the less effective they appear,” Kabay said. “...There is an exceptional psychological tendency to narrow your functional view and forget the earlier conditions we have improved.” That's why funding for preventative measures against major disasters tend to vacillate over a half-generation. The recent memory of a bridge collapse leads to tougher civil engineering laws; a distant memory leads to accusations of overkill and overbuilding. "Many people start thinking ‘we're wasting money here, we've been wasting all this money on backup systems we never need.’"

This is true whether you're talking about engineering systems or government regulation of businesses. The more effective you are at preventing disasters, the more likely people are to claim the measures you took are just wasteful bureaucracy getting in the way of cost efficient operation. The only way to know whether the extra safety built into a system is worth the money or not is to not implement the extra safety measures and find out what happens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #523
Astro; I was listening to the radio and a chat with http://www.chalmers.se/sv/forskning/professorer-sedan-1992/beskrivningar/Sidor/lembit-sihver-karnkemi.aspx" , Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering, he came back from Japan on Monday, he visited Fukushima I earlier.

One guy was asking this very good question (without getting a clear answer):
Why doesn’t the rescue team take a bunch of fire hoses and connect and extend them far enough to put fire trucks on safe distance, pumping water in the spent fuel ponds... using a helicopter to get it in right position?​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #524
OmCheeto: That looks 'dangerous'... :wink:
 
  • #525
Astronuc said:
The problem is lack of information.

I expect the seawater pumps are small and are being run by portable power generators that were brought in. I heard 'fire hoses' mentioned, but I don't understand the context. I don't really know where the seawater is being introduced, or at what rate.

Visuals of helo's dropping water seems... very weak. The water is nearly a dispersed fog before it lands. A water cannon, as opposed to just a hose might have been a thought to get water from a distance. I'm guessing the radiaton field is too intense and wide around 4 now to do that.

Supposedly, they'll be trying to fire up pumps in #2 with a newly installed line. I don't see this going well, and I doubt that people being fried by gamma radiation (assuming they never leave their suits), sleep deprived, and emotionally fragile are going to be able to make the proper calculations, given the issues with 4.

Astronuc said:
The physics is just about match flow rate with heat generation rate - matching them so the water in the core doesn't get too hot.

I don't know how open the primary system is - in other words, besides the steam coming off - is there water 'leaving' containment? Is it going into the ocean?

From what I understand, it's literally boiling out, so it's eventually ending in the ocean or land, but not a drect leak back out... except possibly in the pool of #4.

Astronuc said:
There is a mass balance (a la continuity equation). If Δm or dm/dt in the system = 0, if dm (water)/dt = dm (steam), then there's no net gain/loss of water in the system, and steam is coming out with activity. If dm (seawater)/dt > dm (steam), but Δm = 0 in the primary system/containment, where is the water going? The ocean?

Has the inflow of water to the cores in the RPV been sufficient to cool the fuel? Has the water inflow into containment been sufficient?

The what about the spent fuel pools - particularly the one in Unit 4?

It's too bad they'd just removed those rods from active duty to the pool in 4 days earlier... that is some HORRIBLE luck.
 
  • #527
Lancelot59 said:
It's a big ol' world out there. Or under there as the case may be.

What really gets at me is some of the jokes people are making about this.

For instance, one person claims that it's a scam because everything looks fine on google streetview. I think that was meant as an ironic joke.
I also heard some people saying that the earthquake was karma getting a japan for the attack at pearl harbour. Which makes no sense.

I guess some people find it amusing.

I'm all for laughing in the face of death and tragedy, but it has to be funny, not exploitive and mean.

Those aren't really jokes, just anger and dislike and infantile sensibilities leaking out, you know? It's a pretty ugly thing to see...

...Besides, it just shows AGAIN how little many people grasp the concept of Karma.
 
  • #528
nismaratwork said:
...Why is nuclear so reviled when what we have is already so incredibly lethal on a global scale?

Likely because of the association with "nuclear weapons." I'm sure a guy named Joe Hitler running for president would have really bad luck but not because of his political views.

EDIT: I know it's inappropriate to play a "numbers" game, but how many people must die as a direct result of this disaster for it to be even with coal on a death/gigawatt basis? I did this calculation before here: (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2882522&postcount=8)
 
  • #529
nismaratwork said:
...Why is nuclear so reviled when what we have is already so incredibly lethal on a global scale?

Nuclear energy involves ATOMS and RADIATION, and those are dangerous. :rolleyes:
 
  • #530
FlexGunship said:
Likely because of the association with "nuclear weapons." I'm sure a guy named Joe Hitler running for president would have really bad luck but not because of his political views.

True, although I'd have thought 'Hussein' would be a more immidiate downer.

Besides, Ivan is anti-nuclear, but he knows the difference between 'sizzle' and 'KABOOM'. I want to know why informed and rational people hold a view that I don't understand... the nuts I get, and the people who just hear 'atom' and think 'Ivy Mike', but not others.
 
  • #531
jhae2.718 said:
Nuclear energy involves ATOMS and RADIATION, and those are dangerous. :rolleyes:

Hmmm... people are going to be very disturbed when they realize they're also made of atoms, and by gum, EMIT radiation!

Oh my, place me in a cask ASAP!

:wink:
 
  • #532
nismaratwork said:
Besides, Ivan is anti-nuclear, but he knows the difference between 'sizzle' and 'KABOOM'. I want to know why informed and rational people hold a view that I don't understand... the nuts I get, and the people who just hear 'atom' and think 'Ivy Mike', but not others.

Here is one of Ivan's previous posts (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2883023&postcount=13). I'm not sure if his views have changed since then, but he WAS concerned about intentional misuse of a nuclear reactor. (As opposed to intentional misuse of fuel oil, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO).)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #533
FlexGunship said:
Here is one of Ivan's previous posts. I'm not sure if his views have changed since then, but he WAS concerned about intentional misuse of a nuclear reactor. (As opposed to intentional misuse of oil.) https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2883023&postcount=13

Hmmm... understand I really like and respect Ivan, so I want to understand his view, whether or not I agree.

I'll admit, the misuse of oil money is horrible, but some twit with a cropduster and spent fuel could do a LOT of damage.

The thing is, if we were united in this issue, we could have a *useful* central storage facility with rail access. This would no longer leave spent fuel on-site, which is of some concern both potential and practical.

I don't like some of our current reactor placements (Cali) or age (many), but the solution to me is a combination of wind, solar, and so that we all live long enough to get the fomer two really going... nuclear.

PBRs, and less exotic designs aren't just safer, they're more efficient in the use of the heat they generate. None of that can happen while we're just "anti-nuke"... who would invest in building these if they can't be licensed? NIMBY is literally killing us.

edit: To be fair, ANFO can do a lot of damage (Oklahoma City)... a pony nuke or dirty bomb would be FAR worse, economically, psychologically, and practically. The cleanup... oh man.
 
  • #534
nismaratwork said:
edit: To be fair, ANFO can do a lot of damage (Oklahoma City)... a pony nuke or dirty bomb would be FAR worse, economically, psychologically, and practically. The cleanup... oh man.

Well, there's the question of intentional damage and unintentional damage. History has shown that there is much more intentional damage done by misuse of oil. Additionally, history has shown that there it much more unintentional damage done by oil. The same is true of coal.

Oddly, no one has found a way to misuse solar power to cause damage... or have they?

72888-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Magnifying-Glass-Casting-Burning-Light-On-An-Ant.jpg
 
  • #535
FlexGunship said:
Well, there's the question of intentional damage and unintentional damage. History has shown that there is much more intentional damage done by misuse of oil. Additionally, history has shown that there it much more unintentional damage done by oil. The same is true of coal.

Oddly, no one has found a way to misuse solar power to cause damage... or have they?

72888-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Magnifying-Glass-Casting-Burning-Light-On-An-Ant.jpg

Heh, I have to admit that I've wondered at people who want installations in space to gather solar energy, and beam it as microwaves back to earth. That sounds like a pretty good weapons platform to me, given a bit of work; any time you can direct large amounts of energy, there can be trouble.

On the other hand, the ants have they're vengence, it's called, 'Them'. Those were BAD*** ants. :biggrin:
 
  • #536
From a few months ago.

FlexGunship said:
Not to be overly utilitarian, but if you're discussing the dangers of power generation (which is not the purpose of the thread) shouldn't you count it in terms of watt-hours per death. Obviously, higher would be better! More power with fewer deaths.

Since I invented the unit, I'd like to call it the "toasty" (symbol is the Jesus fish, ichthys).


-Wind is pretty bad at 6.66 teratoasties.
-Rooftop solar is horrible at 2.27 teratoasties.
-Hydro is okay if you ignore Banqiao (the Chernobyl of hydroelectric) at 10 teratoasties, but a crappy 0.71 teratoasties if you include it.
-Nuclear has the best ratio at 25 teratoasties if you INCLUDE Chernobyl. If you don't include Chernobyl then it has a rating of 1875 teratoasties. That's 1.875 petatoasties! (That number includes a single death that was attributed to radiological exposure of a plant worker. There is still debate over that.)

For comparison, coal is only 0.006 teratoasties, and oil is 0.028 teratoasties.

Banqiao was responsible for 26,000 deaths directly, and 150,000 from famine and disease after. Chernobyl was responsible for 56 deaths directly and 19 more later were attributed to it. I vote we stop talking about Chernobyl entirely, forever, in the context of nuclear safety. It essentially works out to a rounding error for coal or oil.

EDIT: source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
 
  • #537
FlexGunship said:
From a few months ago.

Hmmm, that guy makes some good points! :wink:
 
  • #538
I have to say I really enjoyed the "petatoasties".
 
  • #539
nismaratwork said:
Hmmm, that guy makes some good points! :wink:

Sometimes he's full of crap though.
 
  • #540
FlexGunship said:
Sometimes he's full of crap though.

We tolerate his shortcomings in favor of his strengths. :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

M7.5 Earthquake, near Anamizu, W Japan
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
M7.1 Earthquake, Hyuganada Sea, E of Kyushu coast
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mag 7.6 - 73 km ENE of Misawa, Japan, tsunami warning issued
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
658
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (19 years ago)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Earthquake precursors associated with the Turkey earthquakes
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
What Caused the M 7.0 Earthquake in NE Honshu, Japan?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
How big was the tsunami from the recent Japan earthquake?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Mag 6.7 earthquake near Tomakomai, Hokkaido, Japan
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
M7.6 Earthquake of coast of Mindinao, Philippines
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
M6.8 and M6.3 east of Mindanao, Philippines
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K