OFFICIAL Japan Earthquake/Tsunami Discussion Thread

[x635 4,066]

8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan, massive damage and growing death toll. The video of the damage is unbelievable. Reported to be 80 fires currently, including oil refineries and a nuclear power plant. 19 strong aftershocks reported, aftershocks could last for several years.

Tsunami warnings in effect for Hawaii and the ENTIRE US west coast for this morning, 6 foot waves expected.

Thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved.

[helicopper 1,050]

Hundreds of deaths already reported, catastrophic damage and flooding in many areas. Media reports that Tokyo's earthquake resistant high-rises and hotels have sustained little structural damage but this is not the case elsewhere. Evacuations being ordered, including around one nuclear power plant near epicenter of quake.

Search underway for boat carrying 100+/- passengers.

Reports still coming in as this incident still developing. Live coverage on almost every network.

[ajsbear 11]

Train that was running along the coast is also missing.

[abaduck 123]

USGS moment tensor

FWIW, MW9.0 is equivalent energy release of around 25,000 megatons...

Mike

[IzzyEng4 427]

My friend talked to his mother in Tokyo and the city is basically shut down. He just got back to the states about 24 hours ago. They are okay but they were having problems with the nuke power plant in Funkashima was having a cooling water problem.

There was a ship with 100 souls on board that was swept away and is missing and one of the news outlets from Japan is reporting up to 88,000 people could be missing.

[bob803 1]

national buoy database can see realtime buoy data

[RescueKujo 130]

Guys...tsunami warning for Point Concepcion (Santa Barbara area) north...advisory only south from their to the Mexican border. Waves expected around 7 feet around San Francisco, with waves here in Southern California supposed to be less than 3 feet.

As we are the BLS Coordinating Agency for San Diego County, we went on alert about 12:30 am when County OEM came up on the county radio for a roll call.

Watching a LA tv station right now, as the wave is supposed to start hitting the coast up there in about 20 minutes...

[abaduck 123]

Some serious conflagrations, mostly started by ruptured gas lines:

Mike

[x129K 1,393]

THE END IS NEAR

[ajsbear 11]

Here is a question. Could we handle a tsunami of these proportions on the east coast?

[JohnnyOV 2]

Here is a question. Could we handle a tsunami of these proportions on the east coast?

We can't even get departments to stretch a line through the front door, not open a ladder pipe while guys are still operating inside, or operate on the same frequency.... and you want to talk about handling a tsunami? Oh man , thank you haha.

Edited March 11, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[xfirefighter484x 234]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/11/natpkg.tsunami.wrap.cnn.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/11/nat.moment.of.quake.cnn.html

[helicopper 1,050]

Here is a question. Could we handle a tsunami of these proportions on the east coast?

We have people in our area who refuse to acknowledge that we can be hit by coastal storms (nor'easter, tropical storm, or hurricane) so their planning for those is inadequate. Do you think they're really going to plan for a tsunami?

We'd have better luck getting them to plan for Godzilla or the blob.

[NJMedic 96]

Here is a question. Could we handle a tsunami of these proportions on the east coast?

Pretty much across the board the answer is no. This question was discussed after the Tsunami in 2006. A Cat 5 hurricane would be bad enough for the tri state area.

[x129K 1,393]

What if we promise them "Tsunami Technician" t-shirts?

[ajsbear 11]

We have people in our area who refuse to acknowledge that we can be hit by coastal storms (nor'easter, tropical storm, or hurricane) so their planning for those is inadequate. Do you think they're really going to plan for a tsunami?

We'd have better luck getting them to plan for Godzilla or the blob.

You are right Chris but with the frequency of earthquakes the last few years, even in areas that do not get them as bad as they have been it can happen and the likelyhood keeps going up as more and more natural disaster occur.

[firecapt32 282]

AJSBEAR dont you live up on a hill?? just asking

I thought the tasuanimi hit yesterday at least along the Saw Mill River and the Hutch.

[x635 4,066]

Google launches person finder after Japanese tsunami

Austin Business Journal - by Cromwell Schubarth, Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:10pm CST

Google Inc. activated its "person finding" tool on Friday to help track people missing after a devastating earthquake and 13-foot tsunami in Japan.

Read More: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2011/03/11/google-launches-person-finder-after.html

[NJMedic 96]

What if we promise them "Tsunami Technician" t-shirts?

I like you style. Throw in patches and stickers and we would have to beat them off with sticks.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Here is a question. Could we handle a tsunami of these proportions on the east coast?

In a word, yes but there is a much larger risk of an Earthquake under New York City than a tsunami ever hitting the East Coast. Without going to deep into the geophysics and geology of the issue, the tectonic plate that comprises the entire East Coast and all the US upto California is moving away from its boardering plates. This creates a rift valley (the mid-atlantic trench). The rift valley is fairly stable because that is where the new oceanic crust is formed from the magma bellow. Where this earthquake, creating the tsunami occurred is at a subduction zone, where one plate flows under another. These are significantly less stable, especially in Japan where a heavier oceanic crust is flowing under a lighter continental crust. The rift valley that is forming in the atlantic is where two oceanic crusts with similar densities are splitting apart. Basically, there are significantly different geologic processes occurring in the Atlantic vs. the Pacific. This crustal movement is why we find different types of fossils on different continents, essentially where the land masses are currently is not where they were 100 million years ago, which is not where they were 500 million years ago, which is not where they were 1 billion years ago, which is not where they where 4 billion years ago. While you can not say that it will never happen, the planetary forces that are at work, and have been at work since the dawn of time make it very, very unlikely, but not impossible.

If anyone wants my sources or links or any further info PM me because I really do not want to get too in-depth with the science here because it really is very technical and unless you really do know what is being discussed, it will not make any sense to you and actually confuse you more. The only reason I commented is because this is one aspect of a larger topic my advisor and professors have been studying for 30 years.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

In a word, yes but there is a much larger risk of an Earthquake under New York City than a tsunami ever hitting the East Coast. Without going to deep into the geophysics and geology of the issue, the tectonic plate that comprises the entire East Coast and all the US upto California is moving away from its boardering plates. This creates a rift valley (the mid-atlantic trench). The rift valley is fairly stable because that is where the new oceanic crust is formed from the magma bellow. Where this earthquake, creating the tsunami occurred is at a subduction zone, where one plate flows under another. These are significantly less stable, especially in Japan where a heavier oceanic crust is flowing under a lighter continental crust. The rift valley that is forming in the atlantic is where two oceanic crusts with similar densities are splitting apart. Basically, there are significantly different geologic processes occurring in the Atlantic vs. the Pacific. This crustal movement is why we find different types of fossils on different continents, essentially where the land masses are currently is not where they were 100 million years ago, which is not where they were 500 million years ago, which is not where they were 1 billion years ago, which is not where they where 4 billion years ago. While you can not say that it will never happen, the planetary forces that are at work, and have been at work since the dawn of time make it very, very unlikely, but not impossible.

If anyone wants my sources or links or any further info PM me because I really do not want to get too in-depth with the science here because it really is very technical and unless you really do know what is being discussed, it will not make any sense to you and actually confuse you more. The only reason I commented is because this is one aspect of a larger topic my advisor and professors have been studying for 30 years.

Thanks Bill!!

[Bnechis 3,961]

In a word, yes but there is a much larger risk of an Earthquake under New York City than a tsunami ever hitting the East Coast. Without going to deep into the geophysics and geology of the issue, the tectonic plate that comprises the entire East Coast and all the US upto California is moving away from its boardering plates. This creates a rift valley (the mid-atlantic trench).......... While you can not say that it will never happen, the planetary forces that are at work, and have been at work since the dawn of time make it very, very unlikely, but not impossible.....The only reason I commented is because this is one aspect of a larger topic my advisor and professors have been studying for 30 years.

The U.S. East coast does have a history earthquakes and unlike the west coast we have no sismic building codes.

NY Earthquakes About 20 years ago FEMA was commenting that the east coast was due for a major quake and if its epicenter was near Boston, that due to the masonary "ordinary" construction Boston could see 60-80% of its buildings with very sever damage or distroyed. SO yes earthquake is a major threat, but what about a tsunami?

You are correct that an earthquake generated tsunami on the US East Coast is unlikely. But, a mega tsunami trigered by a volcanic event in the canary islands and the shearing off of half the volcano will cause a 200 foot high wall of water to strike the entire eastern seaboard. Canary Islands and CNN Warning

Edited March 12, 2011 by Bnechis

[ajsbear 11]

AJSBEAR dont you live up on a hill?? just asking

I thought the tasuanimi hit yesterday at least along the Saw Mill River and the Hutch.

Yes Cap, Further up river than you and yes up on a hill. A 30 foot wall of water if it made it this far up the Hudson still won't get up here but I have to come down off the mountain to get supplies. And the boy eats everything in site lately.

[ajsbear 11]

The U.S. East coast does have a history earthquakes and unlike the west coast we have no sismic building codes.

NY Earthquakes About 20 years ago FEMA was commenting that the east coast was due for a major quake and if its epicenter was near Boston, that due to the masonary "ordinary" construction Boston could see 60-80% of its buildings with very sever damage or distroyed. SO yes earthquake is a major threat, but what about a tsunami?

You are correct that an earthquake generated tsunami on the US East Coast is unlikely. But, a mega tsunami trigered by a volcanic event in the canary islands and the shearing off of half the volcano will cause a 200 foot high wall of water to strike the entire eastern seaboard. Canary Islands and CNN Warning

I read a book about 2 years ago that talked about that very subject Barry. A volcanic event that caused a part of the island to split,fall into the ocean and cause a 200 ft Tsunami that would hit the east coast. The scientific community is split on this from what I remember.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

The U.S. East coast does have a history earthquakes and unlike the west coast we have no sismic building codes.

NY Earthquakes About 20 years ago FEMA was commenting that the east coast was due for a major quake and if its epicenter was near Boston, that due to the masonary "ordinary" construction Boston could see 60-80% of its buildings with very sever damage or distroyed. SO yes earthquake is a major threat, but what about a tsunami?

You are correct that an earthquake generated tsunami on the US East Coast is unlikely. But, a mega tsunami trigered by a volcanic event in the canary islands and the shearing off of half the volcano will cause a 200 foot high wall of water to strike the entire eastern seaboard. Canary Islands and CNN Warning

I think you may have missed my point or I missed yours but I was saying that NY has a history of earthquakes, in-fact one that occurred several years ago was equal in magnitude to the twin towers falling on 9/11 only one came up and the other came down (two very different occurrences when looking at a seismograph). These obviously do pose a threat. I was not saying that earthquakes don't happen, they do, but it is the tsunami that was in question. You can have earthquakes, even earthquakes out at sea that do not form tsunamis, it all depends on the depth in the crust relative to the mantel that the earthquake occurs.

There are the risk of super-tsunamis, just like there is the risk of the super tornado, super hurricane, super volcano. There is a much greater risk of the Super-volcano under Yellowstone (yes it is real and yes it is a major when, not if) blowing its lid then tsunami affecting the East Coast. Additionally, Tsunamis have hit the east coast, Atlantic City NJ has had two in the last 100 years but they do not have the same forces at work that would allow for a major tsunami like threatens the west coast.

The super-tsunami you describe actually can not be reliably or accurately described by seismology, instead it falls into the field of study of volcanology, a much more fledgling and developing science. While the conclusions are no less valid, the fact of the mater is we are not be to accurately study these so called super storms, while we can use models to predict, they are rarely, if ever accurate of what the true effects would be. One final point, if you are concerned about this, then you should be doubly concerned with the melting and degradation of continental ice sheets because if a large enough chunk of ice breaks off and falls into the ocean creating your 200ft tsunami wave. The rate that the climate is shifting and warming up is significantly higher than the rate that the Canary Islands are exploding since humans came along.

Edited March 12, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I read a book about 2 years ago that talked about that very subject Barry. A volcanic event that caused a part of the island to split,fall into the ocean and cause a 200 ft Tsunami that would hit the east coast. The scientific community is split on this from what I remember.

I believe you are referring to Krakatoa in the South Pacific and in that case the entire island blew apart killing about 37,000 people with the blast, tsunami and dust. Literally entire islands were washed away never to be seen again. And while I can not comment on the opinions of the scientific community in this regard, I can say that the anomalous volcanic regions that exist (Canary Islands, Hawaii, Yellowstone etc) provide an excellent example as to no matter what we think we know about natural systems, nature always and I mean always finds away to make what we thought was a simple system infinitely more complex. What happened there, and what ever will happen during these events was unpredictable and unknown, which is the polar opposite of what happened in Japan. What happened in Japan not only had warning signs, but was not unexpected. The amount of energy bound up in tectonic forces is unbelievable. I have seen with my own two eyes a 100 mile by 100 mile layer of rock that was original laid flat that was then twisted, turned, folded, refolded and then refolded so that now it better resembles a roller coaster than layer of sand pressed together for millions of years.

Edited March 12, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[abaduck 123]

I read a book about 2 years ago that talked about that very subject Barry. A volcanic event that caused a part of the island to split,fall into the ocean and cause a 200 ft Tsunami that would hit the east coast. The scientific community is split on this from what I remember.

Probably 'Apocalypse' by Bill McGuire. Definitely worth reading.

Yes, definitely split about the precise mechanism. The flank of the volcano has failed before and will fail again; the doubt is whether or not it can fail as a single large 'chunk' with the catastrophic consequences described. There *have* been large submarine slides before, unrelated to earthquakes, which have caused devastating tsunami. Hawai'i has seen this type of event on several occasions in the past million years, and only a few thousand years ago a tsunami devastated much of north-east Scotland following the 'Storegga slide' off the coast of Norway.

In general, humans have a false sense of security about their place on this planet. We (as a species) have never experienced a truly devastating geological event; the last 'big one' was the Toba VEI 8 eruption, 70,000 years ago. But the geological record clearly shows our planet is capable of producing them. Events like this tsunami are a *small* reminder.

Mike (qualified geologist!)

Edited March 12, 2011 by abaduck

[abaduck 123]

I believe you are referring to Krakatoa in the South Pacific and in that case the entire island blew apart killing about 37,000 people with the blast, tsunami and dust.

Negative, he's referring to Cumbre Vieja.

Mike

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Negative, he's referring to Cumbre Vieja.

Mike

I stand corrected. Unfortunately I dont have a chance to read much non-fiction these days. Between my readings on stable isotope mechanics and Global tectonics I have no free time for my reads. In fact most of my information here comes from the "bible" of planetary motion "Global Tectonics" written by a personal friend, mentor and professor Dr. Keith Klepeis. Its a good read if you can stomach an entire book on geophysics and its relation to the relative motion of crustal bodies.

Additionally, after doing so reading into Cumbre Vieja there is some reason to believe that the threat is overblown. There has been substantial evidence that some of the energy tied up the formation that would be released if the formation failed is being released in many smaller events that mirror what the actually event would look like but do not match the amount of energy that would actually have to be released to create a disaster of that magnitude. To say there is a split would accurate.

Edited March 12, 2011 by bvfdjc316

[abaduck 123]

Phew. A few points to make here.

I think you may have missed my point or I missed yours but I was saying that NY has a history of earthquakes, in-fact one that occurred several years ago was equal in magnitude to the twin towers falling on 9/11 only one came up and the other came down (two very different occurrences when looking at a seismograph). These obviously do pose a threat.

Yes, earthquakes do sometimes happen in the north-east USA. Some are strong enough to feel. Some, although not in recent history, have been stronger. The chances of one happening strong enough to cause significant damage are vanishingly small.

I was not saying that earthquakes don't happen, they do, but it is the tsunami that was in question. You can have earthquakes, even earthquakes out at sea that do not form tsunamis, it all depends on the depth in the crust relative to the mantel that the earthquake occurs.

Whether or not a submarine earthquake is tsunamigenic depends primarily on the magnitude, the orientation of the fault plane, and the direction of the movement; a dip-slip or overthrust quake is much more likely to produce a significant tsunami than a strike-slip quake.

There are the risk of super-tsunamis, just like there is the risk of the super tornado, super hurricane, super volcano. There is a much greater risk of the Super-volcano under Yellowstone (yes it is real and yes it is a major when, not if) blowing its lid then tsunami affecting the East Coast.

I'd totally argue with that. First, the mantle plume responsible for Yellowstone moves (or more accurately, the North American plate moves relative to the hotspot), so there's no guarantee that the next big eruption will be at Yellowstone; it may be at a new location. Second, VEI 8+ eruptions on that plume have a return period of something like 600,000 - 700,000 years; that's enough for several ice age cycles, and there's evidence that ice ages and the accompanying changes in sea levels are themselves tsunamigenic; they result in unstable continental shelves. So the smart money has to be on the tsunami.

The super-tsunami you describe actually can not be reliably or accurately described by seismology, instead it falls into the field of study of volcanology, a much more fledgling and developing science.

Whoa. They're both parts of geology, and volcanology is pretty good these days; we're much, MUCH better at predicting eruptions than earthquakes!

While the conclusions are no less valid, the fact of the mater is we are not be to accurately study these so called super storms, while we can use models to predict, they are rarely, if ever accurate of what the true effects would be. One final point, if you are concerned about this, then you should be doubly concerned with the melting and degradation of continental ice sheets because if a large enough chunk of ice breaks off and falls into the ocean creating your 200ft tsunami wave. The rate that the climate is shifting and warming up is significantly higher than the rate that the Canary Islands are exploding since humans came along.

I'm not going to touch that with a bargepole!

Mike