Japanese Earthquake - was it really that devastating?

[Simfish]

http://www.youtube.com/user/citizentube#grid/user/0870831CE43351E1

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/c0001xgp/

Yes, it was the most powerful Japanese earthquake in terms of the amount energy released. But the youtube videos show that the shaking wasn't even that bad (in Tokyo, anyways) - and plenty of items, even laptops, still managed to stay on the desks. It just lasted for a long time (around a minute). Now, Tokyo is quite some distance away from the epicenter of the quake, which reduces the magnitude quite a bit (plus, the energy is also distributed over the entire fault, rather than localized). Even if you look at the usgs website, there are no areas where the perceived shaking was severe at all.

And even though people say that Japanese citizens are the most earthquake-trained residents in the world, the videos show little evidence for that. There were so many people who simply stayed inside, standing inside the building as the earthquake shook. The people in their homes simply ran outside. Meanwhile, all the official US sources tell us NOT to run outside, and to immediately drop and to take cover. None of the Japanese did that. Are the Japanese doing something wrong, or is there something wrong with the official earthquake advice in the US?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, I mean how big of a data sample do you really have to say that "None of the Japanese did that"? Also, remember that a good infrastructure includes buildings on shock-absorbers that, if they did their job correctly, would dampen any shaking.

 

[Simfish]

Hm, well, the data sample I had consisted of 4 videos. It's certainly not a data sample that's rigorous enough to say "None of the Japanese did that" - it was just enough to convince me that a significant fraction of Japanese didn't do that, which was my actual point (although I should have made that clearer in the OP).

Oh, good point about the shock-absorbers.

 

[Subductionzon]

The Japanese may react like anyone else would, that is incorrectly when exposed to an earthquake, but their engineering is still the best in the world for an earthquake. Most of the damage and deaths from the quake are from the tsunamis generated by the quake. Engineering to prevent tsunami damage still needs a lot of work, but there structures held up admirably.

 

[Pengwuino]

The Japanese may react like anyone else would, that is incorrectly when exposed to an earthquake, but their engineering is still the best in the world for an earthquake. Most of the damage and deaths from the quake are from the tsunamis generated by the quake. Engineering to prevent tsunami damage still needs a lot of work, but there structures held up admirably.

And to add to that, in the end you're trying to combat forces that are just unimaginable compared to what we see in the real world on a day to day basis. I think the real question will be how quickly the areas most hardly hit will recover. One thing I wonder is how long it takes for the water to recede from areas that at this point are just completely underwater (if they do at all!).

 

[rootX]

And even though people say that Japanese citizens are the most earthquake-trained residents in the world, the videos show little evidence for that. There were so many people who simply stayed inside, standing inside the building as the earthquake shook. The people in their homes simply ran outside. Meanwhile, all the official US sources tell us NOT to run outside, and to immediately drop and to take cover. None of the Japanese did that. Are the Japanese doing something wrong, or is there something wrong with the official earthquake advice in the US?

Disaster Prevention Guide in Foreign Languages :
http://www.city.hachioji.tokyo.jp/dbps_data/_material_/localhost/soshiki/gakuentoshibunkaka/kokusaikoryu/bosai/bosaiEnglish.pdf
(from http://www.jpss.jp/en/life/crisis/1/#2)

While trying to find what Japanese government tells its citizens to do during an earthquake, I also found:
Disaster Risk Management Profile
http://emi.pdc.org/cities/CP-Kobe-April-06.pdf

 

[apeiron]

Hm, well, the data sample I had consisted of 4 videos. It's certainly not a data sample that's rigorous enough to say "None of the Japanese did that" - it was just enough to convince me that a significant fraction of Japanese didn't do that, which was my actual point (although I should have made that clearer in the OP).

Having been through the two that hit Christchurch NZ, yes, that really surprised me too. And there were more than four clips I saw.

People do seem to divide on those who react and those who don't. In my office, as the roof started to fall, I saw some standing looking up in bewilderment, while others like myself were under the desk pretty smartly.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing. With a conformist culture, the Japanese may need more permission to panic.

 

[Astronuc]

One's actions would be determined by the type of building in which one finds oneself, and upon the magnitude of the quake.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to get under a desk to avoid being hit by debris from a ceiling. In other cases, it may be appropriate to get to a stairwell or stand near a column. However, some of these options may be futile if the force of the quake is sufficient to cause the building to collapse. And then it may depend on how much mass is above one. Two buildings in Christchurch completely collapsed. In one case, the stairwell was the best location to be.

As for running outside, in high rise buildings falling windows and building facades may cause severe injury. At one two story building in Christchurch, a man ran out of the first floor shop only to be crushed by bricks falling from the front of the building. His mate was trapped inside and injured by falling material, but was able to make it out the back.

Some of the buildings in the central business district (CBD) of Christchurch experienced acceleration well above design, so it was not surprise that they collapsed.

The mag 8.9 is a rather strong event, but it was about 80 miles (~140 km) offshore.

The reaction of people would be influence by their perception of the event. If it seems minor, then perhaps they wait to respond. If the event is strong, they might run or panic, unless the build up is slow, in which case they might delay in response.

 

[nismaratwork]

One's actions would be determined by the type of building in which one finds oneself, and upon the magnitude of the quake.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to get under a desk to avoid being hit by debris from a ceiling. In other cases, it may be appropriate to get to a stairwell or stand near a column. However, some of these options may be futile if the force of the quake is sufficient to cause the building to collapse. And then it may depend on how much mass is above one. Two buildings in Christchurch completely collapsed. In one case, the stairwell was the best location to be.

As for running outside, in high rise buildings falling windows and building facades may cause severe injury. At one two story building in Christchurch, a man ran out of the first floor shop only to be crushed by bricks falling from the front of the building. His mate was trapped inside and injured by falling material, but was able to make it out the back.

Some of the buildings in the central business district (CBD) of Christchurch experienced acceleration well above design, so it was not surprise that they collapsed.

The mag 8.9 is a rather strong event, but it was about 80 miles (~140 km) offshore.

The reaction of people would be influence by their perception of the event. If it seems minor, then perhaps they wait to respond. If the event is strong, they might run or panic, unless the build up is slow, in which case they might delay in response.

Would I be correct in assuming that an 8.9 UNDER Sendai, or Tokyo, or any major city wouldn't have left much of a city behind... regardless of preparedness?

 

[Astronuc]

Would I be correct in assuming that an 8.9 UNDER Sendai, or Tokyo, or any major city wouldn't have left much of a city behind... regardless of preparedness?

Yes - I would expect significant destruction of buildings if they had an 8.9 directly underneath.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes - I would expect significant destruction of buildings if they had an 8.9 directly underneath.

Mother nature can be such a... female dog. I wonder what they're thinking now in relation to Tokai... I'd be terrified.

Is there any technology which can allow a free-standing structure to withstand that kind of event, or is it just too much?

 

[Andre]

I don't think you can blame any female here, dog or mother (nature) or goddess (Gaia). Don't forget that Earth is a highly dynamical object, comprising a set of different gyroscopes in a complex gravity field, providing torques and precession and other wobbles, in combination with heat convection flows. What could be a small adjustment to the forces for Earth can be a devasting disaster for us.

Things like this and much worse have happened in the last 4.6 billion years and unfortunately it's not going to stop now mankind has covered the Earth with civilization that is completely unable to cope with these things. Luckily those events a are very very rare and in another couple of decades it's probably reduced to just another historic note.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Keep in mind that much of the devastation associated with this earthquake came from the tsunami that it generated which hit the Japanese coast.

 

[Forestman]

Here is a picture of some of the devastation caused but the tsunami.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/03/image-of-the-day-japans-quake-tsunami-devastation.html#more

I haven't looked at any of the other links, so I apologize if this picture has already been showed in video or just a still pic.

 

[scupydog]

Just read this..http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html

What are the implications of pumping sea water into the reactor, as this seems be a last resort?

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think you can blame any female here, dog or mother (nature) or goddess (Gaia). Don't forget that Earth is a highly dynamical object, comprising a set of different gyroscopes in a complex gravity field, providing torques and precession and other wobbles, in combination with heat convection flows. What could be a small adjustment to the forces for Earth can be a devasting disaster for us.

Things like this and much worse have happened in the last 4.6 billion years and unfortunately it's not going to stop now mankind has covered the Earth with civilization that is completely unable to cope with these things. Luckily those events a are very very rare and in another couple of decades it's probably reduced to just another historic note.

I was being factitious Andre, I'm sorry if that wasn't apparent. I accept that we live on a dynamic world, and my genes are thrilled to have a nice firm geomagnetic field! I can put things in perspective and even accept that this is as much a part of the process of life as death, but it's still a terrible thing to see.

@scupydog: The reactor will never EVER operate again, ever, beyond that... it's coolant, so yes it's a last resort as far as cooling goes AFAIK.

 

[Astronuc]

Just read this..http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html

What are the implications of pumping sea water into the reactor, as this seems be a last resort?

Salty seawater in a reactor is a desparate action. Unit 1, and possibly Unit 3, are likely history - i.e., they will be shutdown and decommissioned.

 

[Astronuc]

Someone on another site posted a figure from a site looking at an increase in earthquake activity in the long term.

http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/

USGS also looks at trends. Here are some statistics.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/graphs.php

It's noisy - but there seems to be a slight increase in frequency of strong earthquakes of 8 or greater since 1990. Any long term increase could also reflect an improvement in monitoring.

Some of the oldest nuclear plants were built in the 1960's/1970's, and thus reflect a seismic activity assessment up to that point.

I have to wonder if things have changed a little along the western Pacific Ring of Fire, or in generally around the ROF.

 

[davenn]

Someone on another site posted a figure from a site looking at an increase in earthquake activity in the long term.

http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/

USGS also looks at trends. Here are some statistics.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/graphs.php

It's noisy - but there seems to be a slight increase in frequency of strong earthquakes of 8 or greater since 1990. Any long term increase could also reflect an improvement in monitoring.

thats only really a short term view, if you look at long term trends 100 - 200 yrs the avg hasnt changed.
On avg there is still only 1 x M8+ / year and ~ 15 x M7.0 - 7.9 / yr

2004 was a bit of an anomaly in the big scheme with 4 events > than M8


Dave

 

[lark]

The Japanese earthquake wasn't just "rather strong", it was gigantic! Magnitude 9.
For comparison the "Big One" that's expected to strike Los Angeles soon would be about a magnitude 8. That's 1/32 as much energy as this earthquake! The San Andreas fault near Los Angeles is capable of about that size of an earthquake.
I've read that this may have been a once in a millenium event for Japan. A similarly gigantic tsunami struck Japan in 869.
Areas of Japan that were above sea level are now below ...
Maybe there will be new lakes.
Laura

 

[Calrid]

I think off the top of my head, the largest known magnitude was 9.5 in South America this was a puppy in comparison to that but then it's a pretty big puppy!

 

[joelupchurch]

Does anyone have experience in interpreting USGS shakemap data? I was trying to guess-estimate the g forces at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor during the quake and someone directed me to the usgs data. I seem to have to be having some problem understanding it.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/c0001xgp/"

When I click through to the underlying data, I seem to get something close to .6g for the Max Acc (%g) at the reactor.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/c0001xgp/stationlist.html#sFKS001"

FKS001, which is closer to the epicenter reported Max Acc (%g) 63.1432 and FKS004, which is further away reported 57.9340. I used 37.421 141.032 as the location of the reactor. The distances to the epicenter in the table appears to be wrong. It is much smaller than what I get in Google Earth or what the USGS is reporting.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/"

Is there a difference between Peak Acceleration and Max Acceleration? Nuclear reactors usually deal with Peak Acceleration. I'm also a little concerned about the "Not Reviewed by Human" caption on the shakemap.

 

[davenn]

yes interesting, the distances are VERY wrong. event the closest point on the coast, directly west of the epicentre is ~ 95km !

Difference between Peak and Max I suspect you will find Peak = an instantaneous reading, whereas Max is an intergrated, over several seconds, reading
I have been known to be wrong haha ;) unfortunately I don't have any contact with my university geology professors any more. But I guess an email to the USGS would soon clear that up. As well as the distance problem.

Dave

 

[joelupchurch]

yes interesting, the distances are VERY wrong. event the closest point on the coast, directly west of the epicentre is ~ 95km !
Dave

The only thing I could think of, is that the routine that they are calling is returning a result in miles or nautical miles and they are labeling it kilometers. Getting your units mixed up is a popular way to shoot yourself in the foot. It could be hard to catch if no one was using it in their calculation.

 

[megumi norito]

what's crazy is that japan was actually prepared for a tsunami and something like this...at least they thought!...i wonder how prepared we are?...i also wonder if they are going to raise gas prices even more now , blaming this?

 

[joelupchurch]

what's crazy is that japan was actually prepared for a tsunami and something like this...at least they thought!...i wonder how prepared we are?...i also wonder if they are going to raise gas prices even more now , blaming this?

The two reactor plants most at risk are San Onafre and Diablo Canyon. San Onafre has a 30 foot seawall and Diablo Canyon is at the top of a cliff, so it looks like they certainly considered it. These reactors are PWR and frankly make the BWR in Japan look flimsy. Diablo Canyon is more problematic since there are active faults in the area.

Here is a list of all the US Reactors with a Google map at the bottom.

http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/rdResults.aspx?id=27569"

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd just point out, a massive quake would do a lot, but nothing like a tsunami. It was, we have to remember, the tsunami that nailed Fukishima.

 

[lark]

what's crazy is that japan was actually prepared for a tsunami and something like this...at least they thought!...i wonder how prepared we are?

Geologists actually didn't expect that fault to have such a big earthquake. http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71281/title/Japan_quake_location_a_surprise People were not prepared at all for the giant tsunami that resulted. A similarly huge tsunami happened in 869 and in 2001 researchers predicted another one was about due. http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/jnds/23_2_3.pdf

I don't think they could have built a seawall that would shut out such a powerful tsunami. All they could have done would be to not live at low elevations right next to the ocean, or have some kind of incredibly good and fast warning system.

As well as being a huge shock, the quake was optimized to produce a big tsunami, because it had a shallow focus, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

I wonder what they are going to do with the large ships that were carried inland by the tsunami. Leave them there are museums?

Laura

 

[nismaratwork]

Geologists actually didn't expect that fault to have such a big earthquake. http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71281/title/Japan_quake_location_a_surprise People were not prepared at all for the giant tsunami that resulted. A similarly huge tsunami happened in 869 and in 2001 researchers predicted another one was about due. http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/jnds/23_2_3.pdf

I don't think they could have built a seawall that would shut out such a powerful tsunami. All they could have done would be to not live at low elevations right next to the ocean, or have some kind of incredibly good and fast warning system.

As well as being a huge shock, the quake was optimized to produce a big tsunami, because it had a shallow focus, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

I wonder what they are going to do with the large ships that were carried inland by the tsunami. Leave them there are museums?

Laura

I suspect they'll be treated as debris... they'll definitely make some kind of memorial, but I suspect it would be more understated than a large vessel.

 

[lark]

I suspect they'll be treated as debris... they'll definitely make some kind of memorial, but I suspect it would be more understated than a large vessel.

I mean, ships are built near the water. It would be rather hard to tow such a thing around.