8.8 Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan

I'm watching this right now...

Tsunami warnings out for Russia,Japan,Taiwan,Indonesia,Australia,Hawaii,Guam,Chile,Peru,Mexico (I assume the rest of Central America)...

I'm watching a refinery on fire that is out of control and it looks like gas spheres are going up in flames...Does'nt look like the fire dept. can even attempt to control it...

Does anyone have any idea if a wave travelling the distance of the Pacific from West to East would be as devastating after travelling that entire distance???

I remember the Tsunami that hit Thailand travelled across the Indian Ocean and hit the East coast of Africa and did do some serious damage...

No idea on what effect distance has.

Just got a prediction it will hit Hawaii after 4am Pacific time

Doesn't seem to be any warning from california north

Predictions of aftershocks over 6 magnitude. Thats a big quake on its own.

warnings now for oregon and alaska. What about BC?? I,m less than a mile from the coast and only 7m over sea level.

tsunami supposed to hit Taiwan in 1/2 hour or so.

Information here:

http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/2011/03/11/lhvpd9/04/messagelhvpd9-04.htm

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1378405

EMERGENCY BULLETIN 

The BC Emergency Notification System has issued a Tsunami Watch for some zones of coastal British Columbia.
 Those involved include:
 Zone A - the north coast and Haida Gwaii islands.
 Zone B - the central coast including Bella Bella, Bella Coola and Shearwater.
 Zone C - the outer west coast of Vancouver Island from Cape Scott to Port Renfrew.
 Local Governments in these zones are advised to activate their emergency plans and standby for further information.
 The Provincial Emergency Coordination Centre will issue updated information, as soon as it is available.  
 No other areas of Coastal British Columbia are at risk. 
 Further bulletins will follow.

Hawaii just got 4.5 mag quake. Still waiting for tsunami.

Japan - all trains stopped, all tunnels closed, cell service unreliable.

Absolutely devastating images on CNN and  BBC right now. CNN is reporting a fire at a nuclear facility in Japan, but that no radiactive material has leaked. Millions are stranded in Tokyo due to the trans being down (some commute 100 km each way).

Tsunami supposed to hit Hawaii in 20 minutes.

This is the largest quake in recorded history to hit Japan.

I think it's safe to say there will not be much reporting on Libya today.

Terrible videos.  I refused to watch the previous tsunami because it would be like watching a murder. But saw this before I knew what it was.

I cannot believe they still  say less than 400 dead.  Lets get real, if it is only 100,000 people gone, they will be lucky.

Another shocking thing is the comments on the CBC news threads.  Are people so involved with themselves that they only think what the stock prices will do?

And more are talking about Mayan calander and rapture.

And still more taking the japan death figures as real and expressing their disgust at haiti for suffering so much death from a smaller event.

Could any power plant be safe given the fires etc?

Nuclear Crisis in Japan - Union of Concerned Scientists.

The main problem at the nuclear plants is that there is no electricity for the big water pumps for emergency cooling. Duh - when the plant is not producing electricity they cannot run the pumps. They were depending on diesel generators to do that job, but they were damaged.

   It seems like a ridiculously shortsighted problem. There should be more than one source of electricity for running those pumps.

   One idea, where there are hills next to nuclear plants like there are in Japan, is to have regular water stored on top of the hills, and in emergencies that water could be run through turbines at the bottom of the hill to produce electricity. That water could be pumped back up the hill with electricity from wind turbines [when the plant is not producing electricity], and those wind turbines could be a third [fourth] source of emergency power.

   Or, at least have some coolant in storage tanks up on the hills that could be run through the cooling system in emergencies [but that would not last very long].

   Elaborate backup electricity systems are an added cost that they just don't seem to want to spend. "It can't happen here" mentality might be in play.

   Would something like that cost too much? What does a nuclear melt down cost?

   Maybe the need for backup systems highlights the fact that nuclear power is not financially viable, and they just don't want us to know that. Without government grants and loans, nuclear plants would not be built. Even just the basic costs of construction [including loans] and normal plant operations are greater than the returns from selling electricity. Add in the accident cleanup costs, nuclear waste costs, and nuclear plants are a money losing gig.

  Did you know? - there is significant CO2 emissions from the vast amount of CONCRETE used in nuclear power plants. 

Why is it that Canada rarely deploys its urban search and rescue team?  It seems like everyone is helping Japan but us!! 

WTF is wrong with this country?

Hail Mary Pass?

In Japan plant, frantic efforts to avoid meltdown

According to experts interviewed by The Associated Press, any melted fuel would eat through the bottom of the reactor vessel. Next, it would eat through the floor of the already-damaged containment building. At that point, the uranium and dangerous byproducts would start escaping into the environment.

At some point in the process, the walls of the reactor vessel - 6 inches (15 centimeters) of stainless steel - would melt into a lava-like pile, slump into any remaining water on the floor, and potentially cause an explosion much bigger than the one caused by the hydrogen. Such an explosion would enhance the spread of radioactive contaminants.

If the reactor core became exposed to the external environment, officials would likely began pouring cement and sand over the entire facility, as was done at the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine, Peter Bradford, a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a briefing for reporters.

At that point, Bradford added, "many first responders would die."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iM7SAc-6HKpSc0cHhRuTdQ...

Thanks, Contrarianna. Now I'm less worried.

I'm going to stock up on some bottled water, etc. in any case...that is, I think I'm going to do some of the stuff that everyone familiar with earthquakes on the coast tells me I should have anyway.

Deleted

I think that all those who lobby for nuclear energy, and those executives who run the plants, should be volunteering to help contain the reactor. They should be given shovels and bags of sand and sent it to prove just how safe and secure, and don't forget environmentally friendly, is nuclear energy.

Just remember what the doctors told the Chernobyl containment workers; drink lots of vodka. It stops the radiation poisoning.

Can you link to that Sineed?  -- I understood the number that was being used was 8.4

People are going to be arguing about the exact magnitude of the quake for a while.

Peg it to 8 + and you're fine. The decimals are super important, but again, they're going to be a lil' fluid for a bit.

The USGS (the go to place for all your seismological needs) has listed it as 9.0 as of March 12.