• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Developing: Massive 9.0 Magnitude Earthquake hits Japan

Lunacy Giat said:
Japan is the third largest user of nuclear power.
Click to expand...

That's true. However, thy only use nuclear power in a peaceful fashion, so i've been informed, so no they don't have nuclear weaponry.


Anywho.


Going by what Landorus said regarding the destabilization of the pacific plate, then that would mean that the possibility exists for more quakes along the "Ring of Fire" D:
 
I might add, if anyone's interested, that it's "normal" for earthquakes to return in a set amount of years. According to the "Elastic Rebound" theory, a plate moves, but then gets stuck behind an obstacle. During that time, the plate doesn't move (or only slightly), all the while building up energy.

At one point, there will be enough energy/strain to break the obstacle, and it is at this point that all the energy built up is released and the plate dashes forward, until it's halted by the next obstacle. This is the Earthquake, and the energy that is released defines the magnitude of the earthquake.

But this set amount of years isn't always correct. When the time has passed and there's still no earthquake, geologist call that the "seismic gap"... and it's those regions that have been "overdue" that will get the biggest earthquakes. As the strain put on the plates is HUGE, and it only gets huger as time passes.
If I have to believe my friend and classmate (I don't remember it myself), Japan was one of those regions with a seismic gap.
Alaska is another one of those. =/


San Fransisco 1906 M=7,9
Alaska 1964 M=9,2
Chili 1960 M=9,5

Some of the biggest Earthquakes according to my Geophysics notes... Add Japan 2011 9,0 to it as well. =/
 
I heard on the news that there has been massive earthquakes all along the ring of fire lately, except for the US West Coast... where I live. Iow, my area could be hit just as bad pretty soon. Anyone have any more info/know if this is true? (You seem to have kind of touched on it already.)
 
QuilavaKing said:
I heard on the news that there has been massive earthquakes all along the ring of fire lately, except for the US West Coast... where I live. Iow, my area could be hit just as bad pretty soon. Anyone have any more info/know if this is true? (You seem to have kind of touched on it already.)
Click to expand...

That is true. There has been one on 3 of the 4 corners. The remaining one is the US/Canada/Mexico part.

Washington and California are the most likely places if it were to happen. There is a fault off of Washington's coast that is overdue for a very large earthquake (happens every thousands years or so) and there are many active large faults in California. The Oregon, Canada, and Mexico parts tend to be less active.
 
I'm really moved by all of the natural disasters that have been happening in the world. As this thread is about Japan, I shall post my thoughts! (I hope it's alright with all you guys!)

What has happened in Japan is awful. Thousands of people have been announced dead and there are many other people that have yet to been found. All we can do at this very moment, is hope for the best and even give some money to charaties that are currently over there trying to help all of the people in distress. Things will eventually get better, but for the moment, they are having the worst time of their lives right now since the World Wars.

Also, I saw a few people have mentioned about the earthquakes that are spreading all around the Pacific and especially the Ring of Fire. I haven't heard about any of these yet, (except for the New Zealand crisis) but I surely take your word. If you are worried or scared, then prepare for the worst. It's better to be safe, than to be sorry.
 
Jesus, the fears have become true, there has been another explosion at Fukushima's Nuclear Power Plant.

"The explosion is feared to have damaged the reactor's pressure-suppression system, Kyodo says. It adds that "radiation tops legal limit" after the explosion."

That is the quote from the BBC's news team.​
​
 
It really is terrible, and I can't imagine living in any place where a natural disaster hit. It can happen anywhere, but when it happens to you, the reality sinks in that much deeper. And what's really bothering me is not only the fact that there's been earthqukes,tsunamis and explosions, but is that there are people who have been treating it like it's some sort of joke, for example making comments about "all the anime being gone." If there were ever a time where I have wanted to reach through my screen and strangle someone, this would be it. I enjoy a joke as much as the next person, believe me, but there's a time and place, and what's happening in Japan isn't funny. At all.
 
This is all so sad! </3

I am glad that my friend Kiera got the hell out of there and is now back at home in Melbourne. :)
 
Lots of people seem worried that the radiation from the nuclear plants is worse than what the government and Tepco (the electric company responsible for the reactors) are saying. They already evacuated everyone within 20 km of the reactors and then yesterday told people still within 30 km to stay indoors and close all the windows and not to use air conditioning or anything like that. I really hope they're just being overly cautious. :/

Live_Wire466 said:
Going by what Landorus said regarding the destabilization of the pacific plate, then that would mean that the possibility exists for more quakes along the "Ring of Fire" D:
Click to expand...
There is always the possibility of quakes along the Ring of Fire. There are quakes daily, but most are too weak to be felt and even those you do feel are really infrequent and cause no damage. Except for the bigger ones. California had one in 1989 and another in 1994 which were both equivalent to the Christchurch quake in terms of damage, power, and deadliness, but has had ones more powerful that didn't kill anyone because of when/where they struck. I don't know about certain areas being "due" for large quakes though since it's not like you can accurately predict earthquakes.
 
When the nuclear accident is just a few inches away from Chernobil levels, I think tehre are grounds to get worried :| Apparently the last security wall might be damaged and the water they were using to cool the reactor down has started to boil, speeding the process up, so... if I were there, I'd run for my life.
 
Went said:
When the nuclear accident is just a few inches away from Chernobil levels, I think tehre are grounds to get worried :| Apparently the last security wall might be damaged and the water they were using to cool the reactor down has started to boil, speeding the process up, so... if I were there, I'd run for my life.
Click to expand...

It's kind of ironic that the nuclear disaster seems to be the biggest thing on the minds of the mainstream media. I think they touched on the tsunami a bit with a few interviews, then went right back to the nuclear disaster. The last I saw, they said it surpassed Three Mile Island in scale. Yes, nuclear disasters are bad. But do you want to know how many people died from the Three Mile Island disaster? None. Zero. No, there will NOT be a nuclear explosion because materially, it is impossible for there to be one at those plants. This is a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear bomb. Other than the initial hydrogen explosions that popped off the proverbial corks (no, they were NOT nuclear explosions, or else things would be thousands of times worse), we're not going to see any more explosions (unless that steam thing breaks, then we might see smaller ones). But it would take a post that's longer than any post in this topic to explain the difference between a meltdown and a nuclear explosion. And I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I'd basically be plagarizing. Yes, the US could see trace amounts of radiation (in coastal places like California and Hawaii), but it the chances of it being even remotely dangerous are infinitesimal at best. By the way, it's far from the level of Chernobyl. Nobody's died from the nuclear disaster yet. And that's really all I have to say about it.

Personally, I think the nuclear disaster in Japan is a drop in the ocean, compared to the thousands of people that died from the tsunami itself (potentially tens of thousands). Did you know that this earthquake was so powerful that it quite literally shook landmasses from their original positions and shortened the days? Oh yeah, it also shifted Earth's axis by about a half a foot and sank Japan itself by about 2 feet. Yes, nuclear disasters are bad. Yes, they need to be prevented. But shouldn't the mainstream media be covering this stuff too? I'm not saying make it a top story, but they could at least take a few minutes to cover it.
 
Last edited:
I had a lot of relatives there... luckily they're okay. (Not sure how where they live will end up, though. Since most of them live in Fukushima.)
 
In response to the nuclear radiation warnings, I read an interesting point in a newspaper letter this morning:

"We see the 'environmentalists' are eager to talk about the Japanese catastrophe. Not the earthquake and tsunami which has killed thousands of people, but the consequent failure of two reactors which has caused neither death nor serious injury to anybody. This disproportionate coverage of anything with the magic word 'nuclear' is normal across our media. For example, compare the coverage of Chernobyl - where a total of 56 people died - with that of the Ufa train disaster also in the dying days of the USSR - where more than 500 people died. Both were equally the result of incompetant managment, but the latter, though ten times worse, was never 'newsworthy' because no nuclear 'black magic' was involved. The fact is that nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other comparable industrial process."

I must stress that, if you didn't already figure it out, these are not my words. Though I do agree with the original author: in that the nuclear radiation fears are not Japan's biggest worry right now. I'm not saying it's not a problem, it obviously is, but surely the loss of both lives and cities in a matter of hours is a far worse problem. The earthquake and tsunami - not the radiation leaks - have paralysed Japan's economy. The media are focused on a fear now.

Nonetheless, my thoughts go out to those affected, and I hope as many lives can be saved as possible.
 
SBaby said:
It's kind of ironic that the nuclear disaster seems to be the biggest thing on the minds of the mainstream media. I think they touched on the tsunami a bit with a few interviews, then went right back to the nuclear disaster. The last I saw, they said it surpassed Three Mile Island in scale. Yes, nuclear disasters are bad. But do you want to know how many people died from the Three Mile Island disaster? None. Zero. No, there will NOT be a nuclear explosion because materially, it is impossible for there to be one at those plants. This is a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear bomb. Other than the initial hydrogen explosions that popped off the proverbial corks (no, they were NOT nuclear explosions, or else things would be thousands of times worse), we're not going to see any more explosions (unless that steam thing breaks, then we might see smaller ones). But it would take a post that's longer than any post in this topic to explain the difference between a meltdown and a nuclear explosion. And I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I'd basically be plagarizing. Yes, the US could see trace amounts of radiation (in coastal places like California and Hawaii), but it the chances of it being even remotely dangerous are infinitesimal at best. By the way, it's far from the level of Chernobyl. Nobody's died from the nuclear disaster yet. And that's really all I have to say about it.

Personally, I think the nuclear disaster in Japan is a drop in the ocean, compared to the thousands of people that died from the tsunami itself (potentially tens of thousands). Did you know that this earthquake was so powerful that it quite literally shook landmasses from their original positions and shortened the days? Oh yeah, it also shifted Earth's axis by about a half a foot and sank Japan itself by about 2 feet. Yes, nuclear disasters are bad. Yes, they need to be prevented. But shouldn't the mainstream media be covering this stuff too? I'm not saying make it a top story, but they could at least take a few minutes to cover it.
Click to expand...

At least the newspapers I read still talk about the earthquake and the tsunami and their effects (3 pages each! I'll give you the names if you are interested on Spanish media), but the lack of "meaty" images (sorry for the term, but... Haiti. Dead people all over the place- here they are hidden by debris or under the sea) leaves the "last minute" law to full effect: the last disaster will always have preference. And, from what we know now, it might be the second worst nuclear accident ever... and there are nuclear plants that run on the same system all through the world, so it's natural that the media get sidetracked by it.

By the way, according to Agence France-Presse and the Japanese television NHK, the fire at Reactor No. 4 has just restarted after a new hydrogen explosion, and Japan notified to the International Atomic Energy Agency that the Containtment Vessel has broken, meaning that the reactor vessel could get exposed if it starts to melt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top