11 ms·

5.3-magnitude earthquake hits Japan's Fukushima

47 points by velodrome 13y ago

bsullivan01 13y ago
tough neighborhood, is all I can say http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/japan-sits-atop-deadliest-section-of-ring-of-fire/article572438/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/japan-sits...
speeq 13y 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... :\
- jofer 13y 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 13y ago
    "Diablo Canyon 1, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 2?"
  - volokoumphetico 13y ago
    IT's like the entire Japan island is a nuclear bomb ready to go off when natural disaster strikes.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Wave power would be a good alternative to explore.
    - jofer 13y ago
      Good point! It has many of the same problems as wind and solar, though. They're great as a significant part of the energy input, but you still need something else for times when there's no wind/waves/sun.
- bitwize 13y ago
  The entirety of Japan is pretty much on the Ring of Fire.
bhz 13y ago
It is now also home to a bunch of (already) leaky, radioactive, coolant water containers. Earthquakes are not going to improve their situation.
jofer 13y 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 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 13y 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 13y ago
NovemberWest 13y 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_ptr 13y 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.
  - NovemberWest 13y 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?
    - null_ptr 13y ago
      Not all countries are equally endowed in terms of natural riches. This does not mean that everyone should get themselves on equal footing with everyone else by any means necessary. I hope that we will gently steer towards sincere and meaningful global cooperation, where "national security" will be a non-issue. I know this is an unrealistic view given the current state of world politics, but I can't help but dream out loud sometimes.
      - NovemberWest 13y ago
        I do a lot of "tilting at windmills." It is an extremely hard row to hoe. If you want to make real change in the world, you need to bring a great deal more to the table than good intentions. It helps to come up with viable, realistic solutions. And then there are huge challenges in implementing them. But feel free to dream of a better world. I desperately wish I lived in a better world. Sigh.
jmadsen 13y ago
Match this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NRC_regions_and_plant_locations_2008.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NRC_regions_and_plant_loc... With this: http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/US-FAULT-LINES.jpg 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 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," )
- jofer 13y 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 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant 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 13y ago
  It's also built 80 feet above sea level.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

47 points by velodrome 13y ago

tough neighborhood, is all I can say http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/japan-sits-atop-deadliest-section-of-ring-of-fire/article572438/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/japan-sits...

speeq 13y 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... :\

jofer 13y 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 13y ago
  "Diablo Canyon 1, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 2?"
- volokoumphetico 13y ago
  IT's like the entire Japan island is a nuclear bomb ready to go off when natural disaster strikes.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Wave power would be a good alternative to explore.
  - jofer 13y ago
    Good point! It has many of the same problems as wind and solar, though. They're great as a significant part of the energy input, but you still need something else for times when there's no wind/waves/sun.
bitwize 13y ago
The entirety of Japan is pretty much on the Ring of Fire.

bhz 13y ago

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

jofer 13y 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 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 13y 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 13y ago

NovemberWest 13y 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_ptr 13y 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.
- NovemberWest 13y 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?
  - null_ptr 13y ago
    Not all countries are equally endowed in terms of natural riches. This does not mean that everyone should get themselves on equal footing with everyone else by any means necessary. I hope that we will gently steer towards sincere and meaningful global cooperation, where "national security" will be a non-issue. I know this is an unrealistic view given the current state of world politics, but I can't help but dream out loud sometimes.
    - NovemberWest 13y ago
      I do a lot of "tilting at windmills." It is an extremely hard row to hoe. If you want to make real change in the world, you need to bring a great deal more to the table than good intentions. It helps to come up with viable, realistic solutions. And then there are huge challenges in implementing them. But feel free to dream of a better world. I desperately wish I lived in a better world. Sigh.

jmadsen 13y ago

Match this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NRC_regions_and_plant_locations_2008.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NRC_regions_and_plant_loc... With this: http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/US-FAULT-LINES.jpg 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 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," )

jofer 13y 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 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant 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 13y ago
It's also built 80 feet above sea level.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]