Dire news from Japan.

Voodoo_rasher

Look carefully at the location and size of these earthquakes..

http://www.jma.go.jp/en/quake/quake_local_index.html

MadsL

*gives up sushi*

cml387

I rather think the damage is done,op.

danniemcq

me thinks OP is refering to this

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150222-73-magnitude-earthquake-hits-japan-near-fukushima?lite

and

Issued at Occurred at Region Name Magnitude Maximum seismic intensity
03:13 JST 26 Oct 2013 02:10 JST 26 Oct 2013 Fukushima-ken Oki M7.1 4
02:28 JST 26 Oct 2013 02:10 JST 26 Oct 2013 Fukushima-ken Oki M6.8 4
02:17 JST 26 Oct 2013 02:10 JST 26 Oct 2013 Fukushima-ken Oki M6.8 4

in the original link

NegativeCreep

They happen on the 26th. at least they have time to prepare.

Amirani

cml387 wrote: »

I rather think the damage is done,op.

That would be ill-informed. There's still are large amount of containment work going on.

wexie

NegativeCreep wrote: »

They happen on the 26th. at least they have time to prepare.

I hope you're taking the proverbial, but in case you aren't :

https://www.google.com/search?q=current+time+tokyo&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

It's currently 3.26 am on saturday morning the 26th in Japan, these have already happened.

NegativeCreep

wexie wrote: »

I hope you're taking the proverbial, but in case you aren't :

https://www.google.com/search?q=current+time+tokyo&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

It's currently 3.26 am on saturday morning the 26th in Japan, these have already happened.

That's mad the way that happens.

Wabbit Ears

ah feck, I thought we were talking anal octopuses and time machines. nothing to see here then..

wexie

NegativeCreep wrote: »

That's mad the way that happens.

Karl Stein

Building nuke-plants on tsunami prone coasts in an active earthquake zone. Shower of dopes.

This is why we can't have nice things.

cml387

You're not fooling us with that. Everyone knows the earth is flat. Otherwise all the water would slide off.

MadsL

wexie wrote: »

I hope you're taking the proverbial, but in case you aren't :

https://www.google.com/search?q=current+time+tokyo&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

It's currently 3.26 am on saturday morning the 26th in Japan, these have already happened.

Proof if ever there was, that the Japanese people do in fact live in the future.

danniemcq

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Building nuke-plants on tsunami prone coasts in an active earthquake zone. Shower of dopes.

This is why we can't have nice things.

The idea of the plant is ok, the issue was the design.

IIRC they used a copy of one in the middle of America so when the tsunami hit they had no protection to stop it.

wexie

cml387 wrote: »

You're not fooling us with that. Everyone knows the earth is flat. Otherwise all the water would slide off.

http://imgflip.com/i/4ebjl

keith16

wexie wrote: »

It's currently 3.26 am on saturday morning the 26th in Japan, these have already happened.

Welcome to Japan. Where the local time is.....tomorrow.

Karl Stein

danniemcq wrote: »

The idea of the plant is ok

Ideas, unlike intergenerationally problematic nuke-waste, are benign.

donegal__road

Fukushima live cam here
Doesn't seem to be working.

Smiles35

donegal__road wrote: »

Fukushima live cam here
Doesn't seem to be working.

It is for me. Something is shaking in the picture.

Smiles35

It's fine now. It was just a trick of the light. (Really, looks stormy)

canadianwoman

cml387 wrote: »

You're not fooling us with that. Everyone knows the earth is flat. Otherwise all the water would slide off.

Shouldn't it just slide off.......... like a waterfall.

danniemcq

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Unlike intergenerationally problematic nuke-waste ideas are benign.

Fair point, the removal of the waste is a nightmare and most is just buried (aren't humans great at burying our problems deep down).

We can't shoot it into space (wherever the launch is and wherever it travels over will object as they would be fecked if something went wrong)

We can't dump in the Ocean (no matter how much we try to hide it)

However the storage of the waste is a (if you get my point) fairly minor all things considered.

if stored correctly then there shouldn't be an issue until we figure out what can be done with it.

However in the world these days we need a "clean" power source that is able to keep up with demand.

Solar is slowly getting there, wind and waves are meh and not not as steady a source (we can't just charge batteries to use in calm conditions), coal is more harmful than good, there isn't that much choice right now

So until Fission is sorted or we break physics and create a perpetual motion machine we have to try our best

Gee Bag

Looks like the dire news isn't so dire after all.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24677578

A small tsunami triggered by a quake has hit Japan's eastern coast - where the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is located - but no damage is reported.
The 30cm (1ft) waves reached the region after the 7.1 magnitude tremor struck at a depth of 10km (six miles), about 320km off the coast.
A tsunami alert issued for several areas was later lifted.
Workers at the Fukushima power station had been told to leave waterfront areas for higher ground.
But a Fukushima spokesman later said there was no damage or change in readings at radiation monitoring posts around the plant, according to Reuters news agency.

B.A._Baracus

This is sad
They already had enough two years ago. Seems one of them was 7.1. What was the size two years ago?

edit
9.0 was recorded in 2011.

NuckingFacker

I often wonder if "Pandoras box" didn't actually refer to nuclear activity. Clever as we believe ourselves to be, we're too dumb to be trusted with such power, or such responsibility. The World Wars prove just how dumb and irresponsible we are.

srsly78

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

This is sad
They already had enough two years ago. Seems one of them was 7.1. What was the size two years ago?

edit
9.0 was recorded in 2011.

9 is one hundred times the amplitude of 7. It's not a linear scale.

danniemcq

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

This is sad
They already had enough two years ago. Seems one of them was 7.1. What was the size two years ago?

8.9 which if my very rough math is right is 90 times more powerful than this one.

However due to the worry of tsunamis the strength might not be the main problem but how it occurred, and if there was a huge change in the underwater landscape that displaced a high volume.

*math works out at difference in the 2 is 1.8 and it goes up by a magnitude of 10 so thats makes 10+(8/10*100)= 90?

B.A._Baracus

srsly78 wrote: »

9 is one hundred times worse than 7. It's not a linear scale.

two years ago earthquakes wrecked the place. It wasnt just one, it was several over a few days. Now here we are and they are after getting some more....

You really wanna argue about numbers and scale? ... this could be the start of another event like 2011.

biko

19:26 JST 21 Oct 2013 19:21 JST 21 Oct 2013 Ibaraki-ken Oki M3.2

Oh my god, nooooooo

losthorizon

Wheew The gaffer tape they put in place held. Thats ok then

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Having beers and eating fish (not necessarily simultaneously) are my two favourite things to consume. If the Japanese fuck this up any more and I can no longer eat fish I'm going to 'get' them, I don't know how or what I'll do, but I'm going to do a Liam Neeson type thing on every single one of them until one of us is destroyed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlYcaSvfYWw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_SAVHHGQzI

shedweller

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

two years ago earthquakes wrecked the place. It wasnt just one, it was several over a few days. Now here we are and they are after getting some more....

You really wanna argue about numbers and scale? ... this could be the start of another event like 2011.

They say that lots of quakes relieve the stresses and help prevent big ones from happening.
And i dont think there was that much quake damage. What i saw when the tsunami engulfed everything was pretty intact looking buildings. Not wrecked buildings. Sure, some false ceilings and lights fell. There were even cracked roads. But the damage was small compared to what the tsunami did. Which erased an awful lot of property and lives.

One thing i'd like to know is how the quake energy dissipates over distance. That 9.something lost a lot of energy before landfall didn't it? It certainly wasn't a 9 upon landfall thats for sure!

Christy42

cml387 wrote: »

You're not fooling us with that. Everyone knows the earth is flat. Otherwise all the water would slide off.

Seriously?!? Have you ever tried to carry water around on a flat surface. It is bloody impossible. Try it on a bread board or something. The water will still go everywhere unless you only have a few drops (and we have a lot more than a few drops). It follows that the world is cup or bowl shaped.

On a more serious note hopefully there are no more for a long time.

Lone Stone

Christy42 wrote: »

Seriously?!? Have you ever tried to carry water around on a flat surface. It is bloody impossible. Try it on a bread board or something. The water will still go everywhere unless you only have a few drops (and we have a lot more than a few drops). It follows that the world is cup or bowl shaped.

On a more serious note hopefully there are no more for a long time.

Gravity will keep it there duerrppa derrrpaahhh durh

greedygoblin

danniemcq wrote: »

8.9 which if my very rough math is right is 90 times more powerful than this one.

However due to the worry of tsunamis the strength might not be the main problem but how it occurred, and if there was a huge change in the underwater landscape that displaced a high volume.

*math works out at difference in the 2 is 1.8 and it goes up by a magnitude of 10 so thats makes 10+(8/10*100)= 90?

Yep, close enough. It's a logarithmic scale, so the ratio of the intensities of the two is:
[latex]\frac{I_{old}}{I_{new}} = 10^{1.9} = 79.43[/latex] times more intense :eek:

(1.9 is the difference in magnitudes between the two, 9.0-7.1)

NegativeCreep

Lone Stone wrote: »

Gravity will keep it there duerrppa derrrpaahhh durh

You actually believe in gravity? #Sheeple

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

I rather think the damage is done,op.

Yep! Fúckushima power station is really Fubared already, another tsunami is not going to make it much worse.

D1stant

shedweller wrote: »

They say that lots of quakes relieve the stresses
!

LOL.

I was really feeling very stressed yesterday, but then like my house fell down o top of my dog and sh1t. I feel so much better now. Thank you Mr Richter

Dempsey

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yep! Fúckushima power station is really Fubared already, another tsunami is not going to make it much worse.

It doesn't help the containment effort thats ongoing. there is still alot of material onsite that requires cooling etc

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

It doesn't help the containment effort thats ongoing. there is still alot of material onsite that requires cooling etc

The tsunami is (was) expected to be a maximum of only one metre, no real risk to anything protected by the most basic of anti -tsunami systems, most of the physical barriers survived the original tsunami as they were simply overwhelmed rather than destroyed.

Guy:Incognito

Gee Bag wrote: »

Looks like the dire news isn't so dire after all.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24677578

A1 foot tsunami? FFS you could barely surf that.

Dempsey

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The tsunami is (was) expected to be a maximum of only one metre, no real risk to anything protected by the most basic of anti -tsunami systems, most of the physical barriers survived the original tsunami as they were simply overwhelmed rather than destroyed.

I wasnt even thinking about a tsumani. Magnitude isnt big enough. im talking about all the temporary pumps and storage facilities for the contaminated water.

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

I wasnt even thinking about a tsumani. Magnitude isnt big enough. im talking about all the temporary pumps and storage facilities for the contaminated water.

To be realistic, all the contaminated water is now in the Pacific, and has been tet go there for months as the containment systems were destroyed during the original tsunami.

Dempsey

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To be realistic, all the contaminated water is now in the Pacific, and has been tet go there for months as the containment systems were destroyed during the original tsunami.

Care to back that up?

im aware that some contaminated water has leaked but to say that hundreds of tonnes per day is flushed out to sea is nonsense. they have temporary pumps and increasing storage onsite to deal with the contaminated water used to cool spent rods and damaged reactors

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE99K01E20131021?irpc=932

see the picture, they be storage tanks

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

Care to back that up?

im aware that some contaminated water has leaked but to say that hundreds of tonnes per day is flushed out to sea is nonsense. they have temporary pumps and increasing storage onsite to deal with the contaminated water used to cool spent rods and damaged reactors

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE99K01E20131021?irpc=932

see the picture, they be storage tanks

OK
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-plant-radiation-leaks.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=3&pagewanted=all&

On Wednesday, government officials said they believed 300 tons, or 75,000 gallons, of the tainted water was entering the ocean daily.

OK it's in the news, the same news that anyone else can see, is it true??? well I can't prove it!

Dempsey

[Deleted User] wrote: »

OK
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-plant-radiation-leaks.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=3&pagewanted=all&


OK it's in the news, the same news that anyone else can see, is it true??? well I can't prove it!

reading that article, they are speculating about groundwater passing through from the mountains. I was clearly talking about the temporary cooling system and storage for the spent rods and reactors.

saying all the contaminated water is in the sea is inaccurate

Canis Lupus

Deleted User wrote: »

OK
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-plant-radiation-leaks.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=3&pagewanted=all&


OK it's in the news, the same news that anyone else can see, is it true??? well I can't prove it!

I'm not sure that's accurate in so far as 300 tonnes was the amount roughly that entered the ocean. It wasn't a daily thing. Brief google:

bbc: 'One of the largest leaks took place in August, when Tepco discovered a leak of at least 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water at a different part of the plant.'