2011 Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - News and Analysis

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Mar 2011 17:50

Data point 1: I have read some news items off this thread that say that the sea shows enhanced raiation levels. I presume that is somewhere near Fukushima? Can anyone confirm?

Data point 2: Another news item says that the 16 cm thick steel containment vessel is not filling up with water as fast as it should, and someone has speculated that the leak could be from existing (designed) access openings in the vessel. This of course could be speculation.

But if you put data point 1 and 2 together it could possibly mean that the zirconium tubes did melt allowing radiation contamination to get in the water. That water is leaking out of the steel containment vessel. It is also leaking out of the concrete protection around it to reach the sea. This is of course pure speculation on my part, but how does one fit in the leaking container news with enhanced sea water radiation? Any theories?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 18:19

Hey guys there is triple tragedy in Japan and people here are snipiing a each other and on verge of borderline impolite and can lead to banning? Please take it easy? All I see is old animosities being dredged up as opinion and sniping at each other.

All take it easy.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 18:37

Vina:

The measured wave height due to the Tsunami at Fukushima was around 12 m from what has been published

The information (same value) I heard was from a Japanese Physicist, was in Japan during the disaster, who has seen the TEPCO/other report, knew quite a bit about design of the plant (hence the 6m design criteria I quoted)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 18:44

Sanku wrote:Interesting discussions.

Meanwhile in reality

In reality, I ask again, in this worse that Chernobyl how many people died due to radiation sickness so that one compare it with Chaankya's number of 850,000?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 18:46

Sanku wrote: ....
This a full fledged disaster of worst possible magnitude possible.

Worse possible magnitude ?? Really??? You are taking deaths due to radiation from NPP?
right?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 18:53

chaanakya wrote: Anyway I request you to ignore my posts and let moderators decide if I should post any thing about tsunami quake and radiations.

Brilliant Idea! Okay. Just don't quote or misquote me. But others may be interested in your gyaan .. so what's the number 57? 100000? 850,000?

munna · Post by **munna** » 28 Mar 2011 19:08

Dear Mods why is rampant "tarring" and "hounding" being allowed against certain posters? Fukushima fiasco needs to be viewed from sceptical perspective for a long while before we hand out character certificates in numbers. By hushing or targeting all dissent against integrity of government data and information from "sources with gazillion PHDs", the "pro" side is weakening its own political economy case. There is a huge geopolitical angle to this debate and hence agenda play and consequent machinations by vested interests cannot be discounted entirely. Let all sides talk and that too for a while before we come to a closure on this. "Experts" too are real men with real lives, families, duties, careers, obligations and are governed by respective national laws hence their words in a highly charged condition have to be taken with truck loads of salt. No harm in that.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Mar 2011 19:41

Marten wrote:If you disagree with someone, call him out and let it go.

It is not that simple. After "calling out" there is a rebuttal, which has its own errors etc.

It is not about "disagreement". It is about ERRORS. This is not a discussion about "who is the prettiest of them all?" which can have disagreements. This is a discussion with hard science in it.

Further, if one is willing to "let go" why enter a debate? Why not sit at home at just "let it go" in one fell swoop? You can not be partially pregnant and you can not "debate with one post followed by let-go".

Lastly, no one here is an expert in nuke reactors. What some folks have been calling out are ERRORS. It has nothing to do with "reputation" or "furthering the cause of nuke reactors". It is a plain and simple -- keep the arguments error-free and then let us see the merits of each argument. Hysteria is NOT an argument.

[p.s. -- the bull is making more progress than this dhagaa]

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 19:42

...
Safe annual radiation absorbed limit in mSv is 1000 mSv as repeatedly dinned to brf members

/sigh/ Can some body be so dense????? I did try to put the information in clear understandable terms.

But, since it is very important let me correct one more MISQUOTE here, 1000mSv is NOT annual limit (or rate per any time period), it is the total (accumulated) dose. What it means that if one sees radiation in air at, say 5 mSv/hr (Trust me, you will be forced to evacuated, much much before that), you may qualitatively decide, how long you should linger around. Same type for calculation may keep you in the right ball park while consuming tainted food. Cigarettes, for example, if you looked at bed value, would be about 100-200 mSV/year (mainly from Rn in smoke) - so 5 or 10 years of smoking will get around 1000mSV.

For Shivji or others who may be interested, the data is primary based on large studies and IIRC 1500 mSV dose produced 0.1% additional deaths. (Google scholar may point to the original studies - mostly based on victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki). The death rate were 99% for 4000mSV)

Madarssa maths only.Could be wrong. Some catch has to be there .

[/quote]
"wrong" is not the word I would use. Pauli had a word for it.

Useful information for the rest:

The accumulative dose is good first approximation... along with "total body dose" but, obviously, as I may have posted before, part of the body, duration (spread over long duration gives body's cell damage to be repaired ), and luck plays part.
Experts, who I respect, give a simple formula (fourth root of time - look it up, if interested) for rough calculation.

Another trivia - Background radiation in US Capitol Building (mainly due to Uranium in granite) is much higher, (in fact several time) s the safe legal limit for any reactor building or even Yucca Mountain). Spending 8 hours per day, the accumulated dose is higher than many reactor workers). This will be likely true for Rastrapati Bhavan.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Mar 2011 19:46

Fukushima Fifty, the first interview

As the situation deteriorated, the first explosion, at reactor 3 on March 14, happened at the precise moment that six soldiers from the Japanese Central Nuclear Biological Chemical Weapon Defence Unit arrived at the reactor in two vehicles. The six of them are now dead, buried under flying concrete

i always marvel at the courage of these specialist teams, like bomb disposal guys...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 19:49

Assuming you are addressing it to me:

Marten wrote: Thank you for all the inputs, analysis, and the education.

You are welcome.

<rant>I cannot believe any of you are actually teaching for a living.</rant>

I am sure, you don't believe it but have done that for decades.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 19:59

AmberG, Aap be na! Please do not reply to comments. It takes two to tango. Request desisting.
Thanks, ramana

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 28 Mar 2011 20:06

Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant: TEPCO

TOKYO, March 28, Kyodo

Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Monday.

The operator of the nuclear complex said that the plutonium is believed to have been discharged from nuclear fuel at the plant, which was damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 20:08

shiv wrote:Data point 1: I have read some news items off this thread that say that the sea shows enhanced raiation levels. I presume that is somewhere near Fukushima? Can anyone confirm?

Data point 2: Another news item says that the 16 cm thick steel containment vessel is not filling up with water as fast as it should, and someone has speculated that the leak could be from existing (designed) access openings in the vessel. This of course could be speculation.

But if you put data point 1 and 2 together it could possibly mean that the zirconium tubes did melt allowing radiation contamination to get in the water. That water is leaking out of the steel containment vessel. It is also leaking out of the concrete protection around it to reach the sea. This is of course pure speculation on my part, but how does one fit in the leaking container news with enhanced sea water radiation? Any theories?

Shivji:
Data point 1: I can point you to (but I am sure you have looked at it yourself) the data you need. What is exactly meant by "enhanced"? As I said before, I can see "enhanced" radiation level in 1986 wine so what one needs is the precise values, and understanding of NPP to know what one wants to know.

Zr tubes have melt (at least partially) and what (and more important how much) has leaked is being studied with computer models and all.. (I have come to know more, about how sea water affects concrete more than I would like to know

..May try to post some perspective here, if entropy in this dhaga let me post it here.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Mar 2011 20:42

vina wrote:So now, when such a wave approaches a shallow shelf like typically found in India, just like a open ocean wave when it approaches shore starts cresting (ie height/wave length beyond a point where the wave itself is stable), the tsunami wave too starts cresting and rises in height and slams as an extra large wave! There is really no difference between a 3 m Tsunami wave vs a 3m Tyhoon wave in terms of effects, the difference being that you dont have warning in a Tsunami wave while there are several hours of warning (sky darkening, rails,squalls etc in a Typhoon) and that is what creates more damage in life and property.

Vina,

This is not necessarily completely accurate. The peak of a Cyclone surge is fairly localized. Also it is a pressure induced surge, not a proper traveling wave. Meaning it is the local water that rises up and drowns people. In New-Orleans for instance it was the river, marsh and lake ponchatrain that rose up. Yes there is a ocean component but once the 'eye' reaches land it runs out of water to be maximally destructive and only the sea shore sees a surge. Also a Cyclone looses energy as it hits land and one half of it is parked over land when the surge hits in any case.

A Tsunami actually keeps coming. Usually 3-4 times. The full energy is concentrated when it hits land.

Also WRT to Tsunami's the wave height is often wildly variable even at the same place due to the characteristics of the wave propagation and direction of energy travel of each earthquake. You can have a 10 m wave historically and then if your luck runs out a 30 meter one can hit the same spot. Historical/Scientific data shows that the exact same Indonesian earthquake and Tsunami struck 200 years ago but there was no Tsunami or a relatively minor one in India. Also in the late 18th century a 8.0 plus quake in the Andaman's generated a 1 meter Tsunami on the East coast. no lives were lost. In the 1940's a 7.5 quake in the same area generated a monster Tsunami on our east coast that killed thousands.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Mar 2011 20:46

ramana wrote:AmberG, Aap be na! Please do not reply to comments. It takes two to tango. Request desisting.
Thanks, ramana

Moderatorji:

From what I can tell:

The spin here in this dhaga by your respected Sankuji et al was going something like this:

"This is worse than Chernobyl" ("Hindu Terrorists are worse" claim - Just after 26/11 )
( I ask, In what way)
" Report of 850,000 deaths".... ( aka - 7000,0000,0000 killed in Kashmir alone)
( all I ask, really? how many?)
.. madarassa math .. jihn thermodynamics ..Q=mcT.. ityadi ityadi ..
Now comes your sage voice
"Why can't south asian indiapakistan get along .. It takes two to tango.. Request desisting.."

Okay boss. It was you who suggested that I take lead, and put some technical perspective. I honestly tried to do that .
All you can see is sniping What " ==" .

Mind you, not a single statement I made here was refuted or corrected by some of these Einstiens. (I wouldn't have minded if some error was pointed out or clarification was made as GuruPrabhu did once, or Bade, Vina et all built on and gave some more gyan)

But as you say, I will desist. I am out of here.

Let me just quote Einstein (or was it Mahatam Gandhi) who said:
"First they ignore you...
Then they mock you...
Then they fight you ..
and Then you win. "

Regards. I did put some thought and effort to make many posts, informative, simple to understand by non-experts, accurate. Hope it was some what useful to readers.

"Good night and good luck"

PS - For those who may be interested in what I or others say.. please visit MIT site or other blogs.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Mar 2011 21:01

Historic inundation height from this paper (~ 1970's) seem to indicate it has been less than 10m from the collected evidence from various sources.
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/hazard/hawauw92002p105_114.pdf

It does not rule out the possibility of a > 40m Tsunami to occur, however small the probability of its occurrence. However, if you go by historic data then there was no reason to design something to hold up for a large 10-12 m Wave height from existing information at the time of site location in the 1970s.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 21:02

shiv wrote: But if you put data point 1 and 2 together it could possibly mean that the zirconium tubes did melt allowing radiation contamination to get in the water. That water is leaking out of the steel containment vessel. It is also leaking out of the concrete protection around it to reach the sea. This is of course pure speculation on my part, but how does one fit in the leaking container news with enhanced sea water radiation? Any theories?

Shiv saar -- if you see the reports that have been linked the following are routes of radiation (this is not just media but many expert views on record too)

0) Tubes have melted -- figures quoted are from 33% to 70% for different reactors/storage tubes.

1) Radioactive steam -- the sea water which was used for cooling boiled off, and with containment broken (for spent fuel: roof, for reactors escaping gases to relive pressure) it carried off radiation a having been in direct contact with damaged fuel rods.

2) Direct exposure to air -- active rods in storage (not inside containment) have been in contact with air for substantial period.

3) Water from reactor leaking out/Sea water not boiled off but dumped back into sea -- this is the one you allude to, and inside reactor it is at least 100,000 times higher.

According to experts, radiation from at least two of the three sources can reach sea and earth both (steam precipitating, water leaching into ground, flowing into water)

Hope this was useful somewhat at least.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 21:05

Bade wrote: It does not rule out the possibility of a > 40m Tsunami to occur, however small the probability of its occurrence. However, if you go by historic data then there was no reason to design something to hold up for a large 10-12 m Wave height from existing information at the time of site location in the 1970s.

Apparently not Sir -- posted previously too BTW.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_ ... unami_risk

AP IMPACT: Nuclear plant downplayed tsunami risk

And while TEPCO and government officials have said no one could have anticipated such a massive tsunami, there is ample evidence that such waves have struck the northeast coast of Japan before — and that it could happen again along the culprit fault line, which runs roughly north to south, offshore, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) east of the plant.

On top of that, TEPCO modeled the worst-case tsunami using its own computer program instead of an internationally accepted prediction method.

35m waves have indeed hit the shore close to the exact place where the reactor was (as posted by Chaankya before) -- after all with Tsunami's exact spot on the coast is quite difficult to predict, isnt it?

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Mar 2011 21:09

Theo_Fidel wrote:Vina,

This is not necessarily completely accurate.

Sure. There are big differences. But the essential point is that when a 3m wave hits, it doesn't matter whether it was from a Tsunami or a Cyclone. A 3m wave IS a 3 m wave.

The peak of a Cyclone surge is fairly localized. Also it is a pressure induced surge, not a proper traveling wave. Meaning it is the local water that rises up and drowns people.

I am not sure what you mean. When a Tsunami does travel thousands of KM, it is the wave that gets propagated with a certain phase and group velocity. What it does mean though is that the water that hit Madras beach was the water that was lying offshore just a few mins ago and did not travel all the way from Banda Aceh to Chennai to hit the beach.

Yes there is a ocean component but once the 'eye' reaches land it runs out of water to be maximally destructive and only the sea shore sees a surge.

Well, a tsunami wave once it hits land dissipates as well, because there is no more "sea" to propagate!

A Tsunami actually keeps coming. Usually 3-4 times. The full energy is concentrated when it hits land.

Yes, the earth quake and the water wall gives rise to multiple shocks, some (not of all ) might generate tsunamis, out of which one will a particular biggie and the rest some chut-mut stuff. Also, the energy does dissipate with distance and number of oscillations due to the "real" nature of water with viscocity,vorticies etc etc.

In some ways Typhoons/Cyclones can pick up intensity with distance, especially if they pick energy from the warm water over which they travel. A cyclone travelling 3000 km over warm water will pack a wallop when it hits. A tsumani wave on the other hand will be attenuated in energy when compared to the energy that generated the wave.

Also WRT to Tsunami's the wave height is often wildly variable even at the same place due to the characteristics of the wave propagation and direction of energy travel of each earthquake.

That will be true for a cyclone generated wave as well, depending on if you get a direct hit or a glancing blow based on how the cyclone was traveling. In India, lets face it, a good estimate of a cyclone surge will in all probability will cover for a tsunami in most cases as well, given that we have pretty strong cyclones with big surges in India and that unless something off the chart like a Richter 12 (remember it is a logarithmic scale) happens off Baluchistan/ Java/Sumatra.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Mar 2011 21:23

Well TF saar is right i.e. 10 mtr waves generated by a Storm/Hurricane are a lot different from a wave of similar wave height as generated by a Tsunami; firstly imho wave height does not give the complete picture of the energy content of a wave the most important attribute is the 'wave length' the latter measures anywhere around several hundred Kms for a Tsunami where as a wave generated by the storm might span only for several hundred meters. It's the wave length that governs the speed with which the wave travels (they are directly proportional) so in case of a Tsunami a wave might travel as fast as 500 or even 1000+ kph as against a typical storm generated wave which might travel at most at 100 kph (that's why early warning systems are not as effective against Tsunamis as against a Hurricane).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2011 21:25

Sanku wrote:Briasphati -- the media is calling the recent loss of Merkel's party as fallout from Fukushima.

Would you consider that a accurate portrayal of whats happening?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 76,00.html

'The Political Fallout from Fukushima Has Already Reached Germany'

Partly true! But she is suffering the cumulative fatigue of financial downturns too! The anti-nuke sentiments have been growing for some time actually. Sanku ji, people sometimes have other political or other obsessions - and they use issues that they think will weaken their opponents. There is a general tendency towards the left [a really radical left] as an undercurrent in most Euro land. This is also what they always do - when facing crisis - the society polarizes into kinds of "mass leftism" and "mass rightism" camps. Result either a Spartakist failure or Hitlerian success.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2011 21:26

Buying insurance in desh means you need to satisfy a dus-percenti to ultimately get the money if claimed. How much does the proposer charge?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Mar 2011 21:32

Vina,

Yes I see some similarities in damage. But the comparison remains poor.

What I mean to say is that there is no such thing as a Cyclone wave. It is a Cyclone surge or most commonly storm surge. The water is mostly raised in place. It does not flow from Ocean to shore as in a Tsunami. If you see the video the destructive power of the flowing Tsunami is obvious. The towns were scoured clean. Compare that to New Orleans where the houses mostly remained standing under water even on the sea shore. Scour was minimal and most damage was by surface waves.

Also what about the scale issue. As you have noted the maximum of a Tsunami is essentially unlimited when you consider large objects falling into the ocean. Storm surges are limited by wind speed and atmospheric pressure to about 3-6m max.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2011 21:36

Friends,
ultimately you have to decide between lifestyle choices. Do you still want to be flooded with electricity for your beer chillers, iphunwas, 50-in LCD's, game boxes etc? Or driving cars that face shortage of petrol or corn-oil supply and hence need batteries? Japan made a choice given its insular position, lack of natural gas and oil, and its panic at being held to petromail (petroleum blackmail) during the early 70's oil price scare.

There are risks in all forms of power generation - even the solar panels need electricity to make, and the silicon wafers are not that clean a process to make. Perhaps large scale salt-storage solar plants are safe in a sense, and wind-farms out in the sea [but then subject to underwater quakes or tsunamis too but that will be a financial loss and not that damaging to human life]. But then we need backups to be used in case of war -when the solar plant I mentioned will be quite vulnerable because it will be spread around over a large area, or the off-shore wind-farms which will be vulnerable to tsunamis, and big dams are of course even more of a danger because they can be used to also flood populations. Would not then consider the possibility of a nuclear plant which actually has a small footprint in land terms, is completely enclosable in a protective concrete bomb proof dome [not easy with the other plants - and the fuel stocks you need for coal or oil]?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 21:44

AmberG, Sorry to have offended you. Yes I did request you to take the lead in the discussion. I am sorry it had to be this way. I was hoping you would let the facts speak for themselves as they have. I did not want you to respond to others comments for that takes away from the topic.

Thanks for carrying the yoke so far.
Request you reconsider your position.

ramana

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Mar 2011 21:47

Sanku wrote:Congrats Chaankya; the mainstream media is picking up on what was being said here by Shiv, You and others since day 1-2.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_ ... unami_risk

AP IMPACT: Nuclear plant downplayed tsunami risk

And while TEPCO and government officials have said no one could have anticipated such a massive tsunami, there is ample evidence that such waves have struck the northeast coast of Japan before — and that it could happen again along the culprit fault line, which runs roughly north to south, offshore, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) east of the plant.

On top of that, TEPCO modeled the worst-case tsunami using its own computer program instead of an internationally accepted prediction method.

Read it all, to see how science can be blatantly manipulated to serve the intrests of unscrupulous experts, who, by carefully rigging the "models" deny reality.

Wow. What a gem of a post. That beggars belief and the conclusions drawn are against everything the article writes about.

Sanku wrote: (not that I am not familiar with the above in my own line of work as a engineer, but then, some things apparently need to be told often and repeatedly)

Translated as. I am clueless and I know nothing about this. But however as a No-Nothing, I am convinced I am right and I will keep repeating the same things endlessly and repeatedly, despite how many ever times I have put my foot in my own mouth and contradicted what was written in the article I linked to myself and drew OPPOSITE conclusions.

Now, let us examine that article in detail. Let me post it in full.

AP IMPACT: Nuclear plant downplayed tsunami risk
By YURI KAGEYAMA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Sun Mar 27, 4:47 pm ET

TOKYO – In planning their defense against a killer tsunami, the people running Japan's now-hobbled nuclear power plant dismissed important scientific evidence and all but disregarded 3,000 years of geological history, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Ok. So there is a postulate that the plant folks ignored 3000 years of geological history.

The misplaced confidence displayed by Tokyo Electric Power Co. was prompted by a series of overly optimistic assumptions that concluded the Earth couldn't possibly release the level of fury it did two weeks ago, pushing the six-reactor Fukushima Dai-ichi complex to the brink of multiple meltdowns.

Hmm. So, the Tsunami was way above what their estimates were. Definitely.

Instead of the reactors staying dry, as contemplated under the power company's worst-case scenario, the plant was overrun by a torrent of water much higher and stronger than the utility argued could occur, according to an AP analysis of records, documents and statements from researchers, the utility and the Japan's national nuclear safety agency.

And while TEPCO and government officials have said no one could have anticipated such a massive tsunami, there is ample evidence that such waves have struck the northeast coast of Japan before — and that it could happen again along the culprit fault line, which runs roughly north to south, offshore, about 220 miles (350 kilometers) east of the plant.

Ah, and all this while we have been talking about how Tsunami impacts depend on local bathymetry and coastal features for multiple pages (I posted on it,so did Bade Mian)

TEPCO officials say they had a good system for projecting tsunamis. They declined to provide more detailed explanations, saying they were focused on the ongoing nuclear crisis.

What is clear: TEPCO officials discounted important readings from a network of GPS units that showed that the two tectonic plates that create the fault were strongly "coupled," or stuck together, thus storing up extra stress along a line hundreds of miles long. The greater the distance and stickiness of such coupling, experts say, the higher the stress buildup — pressure that can be violently released in an earthquake.

That evidence, published in scientific journals starting a decade ago, represented the kind of telltale characteristics of a fault being able to produce the truly overwhelming quake — and therefore tsunami — that it did.

On top of that, TEPCO modeled the worst-case tsunami using its own computer program instead of an internationally accepted prediction method.

Oh. How horrible indeed. But how did the AP folks know that the "internationally accepted prediction method" is soup-e-rear or inferior to Tepco's proprietary method ? So unless some 3rd party panel of experts review both and decide on the merits or demerits of either, this is toilet paper journalism of insinuations variety. But let that slide.

It matters how Japanese calculate risk. In short, they rely heavily on what has happened to figure out what might happen, even if the probability is extremely low. If the view of what has happened isn't accurate, the risk assessment can be faulty.

That approach led to TEPCO's disregard of much of Japan's tsunami history.

Ah, that is called the determinate method innit ? Cut to the person who vehemently concluded in a wink of an eye and a google search that there are "No plate movements" and problems in India's west coast and wanted to look up histories of Tsunami events and decide as " No risk to the west coast" . Err, they did exactly what he wanted to do. Now you cant blame them for taking your advice can you. How horrible!

In postulating the maximum-sized earthquake and tsunami that the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex might face, TEPCO's engineers decided not to factor in quakes earlier than 1896. That meant the experts excluded a major quake that occurred more than 1,000 years ago — a tremor followed by a powerful tsunami that hit many of the same locations as the recent disaster.

A TEPCO reassessment presented only four months ago concluded that tsunami-driven water would push no higher than 18 feet (5.7 meters) once it hit the shore at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. The reactors sit up a small bluff, between 14 and 23 feet (4.3 and 6.3 meters) above TEPCO's projected high-water mark, according to a presentation at a November seismic safety conference in Japan by TEPCO civil engineer Makoto Takao.

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants," Takao asserted.

However, the wall of water that thundered ashore two weeks ago reached about 27 feet (8.2 meters) above TEPCO's prediction. The flooding disabled backup power generators, located in basements or on first floors, imperiling the nuclear reactors and their nearby spent fuel pools.

EEks.. We have people claiming 38 meter Tsunamis at Fukushima and then we hav 8.2m as published and called AmberG as "ill informed" .

___

T

he story leading up to the Tsunami of 2011 goes back many, many years — several millennia, in fact.

The Jogan tsunami of 869 displayed striking similarities to the events in and around the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors. The importance of that disaster, experts told the AP, is that the most accurate planning for worst-case scenarios is to study the largest events over the longest period of time. In other words, use the most data possible.

The evidence shows that plant operators should have known of the dangers — or, if they did know, disregarded them.

As early as 2001, a group of scientists published a paper documenting the Jogan tsunami. They estimated waves of nearly 26 feet (8 meters) at Soma, about 25 miles north of the plant. North of there, they concluded that a surge from the sea swept sand more than 2 1/2 miles (4 kilometers) inland across the Sendai plain. The latest tsunami pushed water at least about 1 1/2 miles (2 kilometers) inland.

Err, so the greatest and biggest Tsunami they could find going back millenia resulted in a surge of 8 meters only . And we were told of thundering 38m Tsunamis (and a direct challenge to my assertion that such things probably NEVER happened becuase they are indeed extremely large). I am still waiting to hear which Tsunami produced a 38m surge at Fukushima!

The scientists also found two additional layers of sand and concluded that two additional "gigantic tsunamis" had hit the region during the past 3,000 years, both presumably comparable to Jogan. Carbon dating couldn't pinpoint exactly when the other two hit, but the study's authors put the range of those layers of sand at between 140 B.C. and A.D. 150, and between 670 B.C. and 910 B.C.

In a 2007 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Pure and Applied Geophysics, two TEPCO employees and three outside researchers explained their approach to assessing the tsunami threat to Japan's nuclear reactors, all 54 of which sit near the sea or ocean.

To ensure the safety of Japan's coastal power plants, they recommended that facilities be designed to withstand the highest tsunami "at the site among all historical and possible future tsunamis that can be estimated," based on local seismic characteristics.

Ah. See, now they are talking sense. Please focus on the word LOCAL seismic characterestics and ESTIMATED laddies. Now isn't that a contradiction in terms, you still ESTIMATE and cannot design for a 100% coverage of risk! HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR ESTIMATE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE NEXT EVENT ? Fundamental question.

But the authors went on to write that tsunami records before 1896 could be less reliable because of "misreading, misrecording and the low technology available for the measurement itself." The TEPCO employees and their colleagues concluded, "Records that appear unreliable should be excluded."

Two years later, in 2009, another set of researchers concluded that the Jogan tsunami had reached 1 mile (1.5 kilometers) inland at Namie, about 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.

The warning from the 2001 report about the 3,000-year history would prove to be most telling: "The recurrence interval for a large-scale tsunami is 800 to 1,100 years. More than 1,100 years have passed since the Jogan tsunami, and, given the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the Sendai plain is high."

Now this bolded part is EXACTLY what I tried explaining by offering the "India Tsunami Protection Option" . If you go back and read the hint in that post, you will notice that I had written that GIVEN that a Tsunami occured recently in India, the CONDITIONAL probability of another big Tsunami happening is very rare indeed , given the overall low probability of a large Tsunami happening and I put my money behind it .

So what should be the thing to do based on that ? In the next 40 or 60 years which is the life of a Nuke plant, if you set one up today, the chances of it encountering a large Tsunami in India is SO MINISCULE, you could IGNORE it. . Sure you will build the protection and design and everything based on a better max damage estimate etc, but in all probability, it will NEVER get tested in the life of the plant .

That was an important point I tried telling and getting people to think . But hey, it gets classified as an "Insurance Scam" and "Monkey Business".

Well, what can I say. All "PissNess" whether monkey or otherwise is deadly serious indeed. All in all, separates smart from not so smart ones. Milk of milk and water of water onree.

___

The fault involved in the Fukushima Dai-ichi tsunami is part of what is known as a subduction zone. In subduction zones, one tectonic plate dives under another. When the fault ruptures, the sea floor snaps upward, pushing up the water above it and potentially creating a tsunami. Subduction zones are common around Japan and throughout the Pacific Ocean region.

TEPCO's latest calculations were started after a magnitude-8.8 subduction zone earthquake off the coast of Chile in February 2010.

In such zones over the past 50 years, earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have occurred in Alaska, Chile and Indonesia. All produced large tsunamis.

When two plates are locked across a large area of a subduction zone, the potential for a giant earthquake increases. And those are the exact characteristics of where the most recent quake occurred.

TEPCO "absolutely should have known better," said Dr. Costas Synolakis, a leading American expert on tsunami modeling and an engineering professor at the University of Southern California. "Common sense," he said, should have produced a larger predicted maximum water level at the plant.

TEPCO's tsunami modelers did not judge that, in a worst-case scenario, the strong subduction and coupling conditions present off the coast of Fukushima Dai-ichi could produce the 9.0-magnitude earthquake that occurred. Instead, it figured the maximum at 8.6 magnitude, meaning the March 11 quake was four times as powerful as the presumed maximum.

Yew... 8.6 to 9 is FOUR TIMES 8.6! And we have DDM in Delhi reporting that Delhi cant stand a Richter scale 8 quake, which is like "Japan" . Remember, I mentioned that quote of how 1.1 is similar to 1.9 because they start with 1 ?. If 8.6 to 9 is FOUR Times, what will 8 to 9 be like?

Shogo Fukuda, a TEPCO spokesman, said that 8.6 was the maximum magnitude entered into the TEPCO internal computer modeling for Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Another TEPCO spokesman, Motoyasu Tamaki, used a new buzzword, "sotegai," or "outside our imagination," to describe what actually occurred.

Ah "Sotegai" sounds like Japanese Speako for Black Swan .. In Yindi, Kaala Hans!

U.S. tsunami experts said that one reason the estimates for Fukushima Dai-ichi were so low was the way Japan calculates risk. Because of the island nation's long history of killer waves, Japanese experts often will look at what has happened — then project forward what is likely to happen again.

Ah. But Sanku wants to do that. Now you say that is flawed? How dare you, Harrumph!

Under longstanding U.S. standards that are gaining popularity around the world, risk assessments typically scheme up a worst-case scenario based on what could happen, then design a facility like a nuclear power plant to withstand such a collection of conditions — factoring in just about everything short of an extremely unlikely cataclysm, like a large meteor hitting the ocean and creating a massive wave that kills hundreds of thousands.

Wooww. woow . Meteorite falling and setting off a massive wave ?. Didn't some one post about such a thing in this very same possibility some 2 to 3 pages back in this very same thread to point out the absurdity of the deterministic model.. A certain Vina , aka your's truly ?

In the early 1990s, Harry Yeh, now a tsunami expert and engineering professor at Oregon State University, was helping assess potential threats to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the central California coast in the United States. During that exercise, he said, researchers considered a worst-case scenario involving a significantly larger earthquake than had ever been recorded there.

And then a tsunami was added. And in that Diablo Canyon model, the quake hit during a monster storm that was already pushing onto the shore higher waves than had ever been measured at the site.

In contrast, when TEPCO calculated its high-water mark at 18 feet (5.7 meters), the anticipated maximum earthquake was in the same range as others recorded off the coast of Fukushima Dai-ichi — and the only assumption about the water level was that the tsunami arrived at high tide.

Well, they did exactly what Sanku wanted to do. And indeed, even topped it with a high tide assumption and now you blame them ?

Which, as is abundantly clear now, could not have been more wrong.

[/quote]

Indeed. But does that address the fundamental point? WHAT IS THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK ? You can arrive at a BETTER estimate based on better probabilistic estimate. But does it GUARANTEE as NO RISK. This is not a question related to Nukes or Tsunamis or anything. But related to everything in life, from running a business, to crossing the road, to Lal Chix, Stock Market everything.

That is why I insisted, that Lal Chix And Stock Market are hugely relevant.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Mar 2011 21:54

brihaspati wrote:There are risks in all forms of power generation - even the solar panels need electricity to make, and the silicon wafers are not that clean a process to make. Perhaps large scale salt-storage solar plants are safe in a sense, and wind-farms out in the sea [but then subject to underwater quakes or tsunamis too but that will be a financial loss and not that damaging to human life]. But then we need backups to be used in case of war -when the solar plant I mentioned will be quite vulnerable because it will be spread around over a large area, or the off-shore wind-farms which will be vulnerable to tsunamis, and big dams are of course even more of a danger because they can be used to also flood populations. Would not then consider the possibility of a nuclear plant which actually has a small footprint in land terms, is completely enclosable in a protective concrete bomb proof dome [not easy with the other plants - and the fuel stocks you need for coal or oil]?

Nuclear is not the same animal. This argument is very hard to defend.

We don't bomb proof coal plants or wind farms or solar plants, just have redundant systems in case of damage so others can take the slack. The problem is the shortage of electricity.

In case of Nuclear failure the plant itself becomes the source of alarm. The shortage of electricity is barely registered. A absolute worst case scenario nuclear failure near a densely populated city will involve casualties in the 100,000+ range and long term, 500 years+, environmental exclusion zone type situation. No other technology we have comes close to that.

I'm of the view that such an accident is now a simple matter of time. We are playing Russian roulette. So far we have had 3-mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima. We have been very very lucky in all three cases. Yes even at Chernobyl. Sooner or later our luck will run out. I say this as a person who resides 25 km from Koodankulam, yes within the exclusion zone in case of a catastrophic failure. Kalpakkam is 45 km's from where my parents live.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 21:57

Instead of brow beating each others who dont know, why dont we think about how the risk could have been handled? Could the fuel tanks location be at higher elevation? The tsunami wall be higher? How much higher? Is that practical?
Was the LWR the right choice for the double risk in Japan?

vina · Post by **vina** » 28 Mar 2011 22:08

High water mark: 5.7 mtrs
Bluff above high water mark: 4.3 to 6.3 mtrs
Tsunami height = 8.2 meters above TEPCO's prediction
TEPCO's prediction = ?

I read somewhere (I think NYT) that they raised the level of their emergency generators by hold your breath 8 INCHES after analysis!

And no, it is not something to laugh at, wisdom in hindsight is 20/20. But you should remember, that richter scale 9 is the LARGEST earthquake in the recorded history of Japan.

To ddm ears, between 8.6 and 9 seems miniscule, but it is MASSIVE. Lets keep that in mind. If it had been the max 8.6 they had budgeted for, they would have been fine.

Unless you believe in some 38 meter prior wave in Fukushima (so , try and extrapolate a 3 times higher wave that what the largest earthquake in recorded history of Japan produce and guess how much more powerful THAT must have been to produce that and you know the 38 meter at Fukushima doesn't pass the smell test) fiction, they were perfectly justified with their choice given the methodology they used in estimating risk.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 22:11

ramana wrote: Was the LWR the right choice for the double risk in Japan?

Sir, thats were the whole angst comes from. In Japan, there is NO GOOD place for a LWR. The whole country is seismic zone 5, and pretty much the entire sea board is Tsunami prone. The cost of making a even somewhat safe option for nuclear power generation is prohibitive.

I think the Japanese have realized that too, that is why they have no new plants for quite some time.

However it is their past sins which are coming back to haunt them.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Mar 2011 22:19

ramana - the question is about the fundamentals of nuke plant design - the boiling water design NEEDS active control, a design that cannot therefore fail-safe. from the excellent information provided on this and other threads we have looked at other possible designs. the BWR tech. is indeed obsolete. No normal scenario analysis based safety design would have saved fukushima - what happened was indeed abnormal. under such conditions, clearly a fail safe design would have been better - but is no guarantor of absolute safety. So, what is the acceptable risk?

however there are many +ves from the Quake and Tsunami disaster around Fukushima - the plant did go into shut down following a MUCH larger quake than it was designed for. Post disaster, the operators and government have acted quickly and efficiently under very difficult conditions - in the backdrop of massive devastation to the surrounding countryside and personal loss.

if you monitor the IAEA site for info - it SUGGESTS possible damage - but DOES NOT CONFIRM them, which suggestions the newspapers and tv channels are selling as gospel truth and painting all kinds of alarming scenarios with - IF the underlying damage is true. It maybe - but we do not have proof as yet.

Radiation readings have been made public, TEPCO is supervised by the Japanese watchdog and they are being watched by the IAEA. We have no alternative other than to assume that atleast 2 of these 3 are telling the truth. The Japanese authorities have wisely evacuated people erring on the side of caution. Nothing wrong with that.

We are in a serious damage control exercise here, but we are not in a Chernobyl situation

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Mar 2011 22:30

Sanku wrote:Sir, thats were the whole angst comes from. In Japan, there is NO GOOD place for a LWR. The whole country is seismic zone 5, and pretty much the entire sea board is Tsunami prone. The cost of making a even somewhat safe option for nuclear power generation is prohibitive.

Japan is volcanic as well. A worst case scenario would be a pyroclastic flow, which can travel a 100 km's on instance, overwhelms one of these plants, instantly vaporizing the water. What then.

Also we should not get fooled by 1/100,000 type probabilities of failure. There are over a 1000 reactors in the world. A 1/100,000 type accident would mean one every 100 years, somewhere on the planet. Unfortunately we are running at about 1/10 years right now. As the reactors age, accidents might get more frequent.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 22:35

Theo_Fidel wrote: Japan is volcanic as well. A worst case scenario would be a pyroclastic flow, which can travel a 100 km's on instance, overwhelms one of these plants, instantly vaporizing the water. What then.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 28 Mar 2011 22:45

Negi-Saar, Please don't take this personally, but there is an error in your post below:

negi wrote: It's the wave length that governs the speed with which the wave travels (they are directly proportional) ...

No, the speed of surface waves is a property of water. It is fixed. Wavelength is determined by the frequency (inversely proportional). In the case of tsunami waves, the frequency in question is derived from the onset time of the earthquake event. In case of tornadoes, the frequency of disturbance is derived from the wind speeds that whip up the waves.

I will just post this and "let it go" as per sage advice.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Mar 2011 22:59

Are there any reports of the plants condition after the quake? I mean any report of the walk thrus and damage inspection reports of the unaffected plants?

The 9.0 eqk must have shook up a lot of the plant structures.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Mar 2011 23:05

Guruprabhu, I wonder why shall I take it personally ?

Anyways speed of propagation of a ocean wave is not even the 'property of water' it is governed by the depth of the water body i.e. in deep ocean a wave will travel much faster as compared to near the shore (v= Sqrt[g*water depth]) where 'g' is acceleration due to gravity.

Having said that I agree was wrong about WL and speed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 23:07

ramana wrote:Are there any reports of the plants condition after the quake? I mean any report of the walk thrus and damage inspection reports of the unaffected plants?

The 9.0 eqk must have shook up a lot of the plant structures.

There were total of 3 distinct plants/storage centers being affected with issues. However I have not seen any later reports of most plants in later time.

=====================================

Negi

I know that using google/wikipedia is mocked at in this thread by this might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami

a tsunami in the deep ocean has a wavelength of about 200 kilometres (120 mi). Such a wave travels at well over 800 kilometres per hour (500 mph), but owing to the enormous wavelength the wave oscillation at any given point takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete a cycle and has an amplitude of only about 1 metre (3.3 ft).[21] This makes tsunamis difficult to detect over deep water. Ships rarely notice their passage.

As the tsunami approaches the coast and the waters become shallow, wave shoaling compresses the wave and its velocity slows below 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph). Its wavelength diminishes to less than 20 kilometres (12 mi) and its amplitude grows enormously. Since the wave still has the same very long period, the tsunami may take minutes to reach full height.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Mar 2011 23:52

Okay folks, it seems that IAEA is going to officially announce that something nasty has happened.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... E320110328

IAEA calls nuclear safety summit amid Japan crisis

"(The) political level is needed, this is a very important issue, this is not only for experts or technical people," he told a news conference.

Uh oh!!! Clearly the matter has gone beyond what the experts can deal with within narrow confines of sci-tech.

The IAEA has been criticized in the media and privately by diplomats for being too slow to react to the crisis.

The agency has said it can only communicate the data Japan gives it and says it lacks the power to enforce nuclear safety standards, something it may now lobby to change.

Oopsie. IAEA is openly washing its hand off its own data and actions and leaving the yellow matter at Japanese doors

IAEA officials said they were especially concerned about pools of radioactive water that have accumulated in the plant.

"This water in the turbines... is also for us maybe now the big concern," IAEA official Miroslav Lipar said.

Uh oh oh oh......

"I think that from pressure readings our feeling is this is not a major breach of the reactor pressure vessel or the primary containment vessel, but we don't know that for certain," Amano deputy Graham Andrew said.

Not a major breach but not certain. So certainly a minor breach confirmed from IAEA.

munna · Post by **munna** » 29 Mar 2011 00:51

Experts are humans too with allegiance to their families, nations, institutions, worries for career, academic "reputations" and what not? Are we assuming that they are somehow immune to political economy aspects of it all and hence above questioning. The mocking tone is hard to be missed but the fundamental point of difference is neither the technical competence of "experts" involved nor their "models". The very capacity to withstand government and international pressures by these "experts" is being called into question. At the end of it all the alarmist hot air may turn out to be just that but the downside of ignoring voices of dissent is simply too big to ignore.

Will we unearth a Japanese Legasov or is it only supposed to happen in non-bhestern (read unwashed yinddos, commies and dragon) sphere of influence? I think that is the real question!