Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

Reply

Old 12th Mar 2011, 01:05
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 3,330
That's a pretty scary observation there, lomapaseo

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 01:05
  #142 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 74
Posts: 1,856
The missing ship has been found and all people on board have been airlifted to safety.
G-CPTN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 01:12
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 814
Sendai airport (RJSS)

Someone asked about the video of the tsunami racing across the ramp.

Here's one shot of the aftermath: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_1846369i.jpg

Sendai airport seems to be rather small - just 6 jetways. And the schedule of flights seems to indicate they were simply lucky in having nothing big on the ground right then: SENDAI AIRPORT

Tsunami struck at 15:00 local time - last departure prior was 14:35, a JAL was due in at 14:55 but may have gotten a wave-off due to the quake itself at 14:45.

I heard a report that U.S. military fields around Tokyo opened their runways for civilian flights needing to divert.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 01:31
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 28
I live in the Los Angeles area and have been sitting here wondering if we'll see a major rush on bottled water at supermarkets. Just waiting for that big one
crHedBngr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 02:22
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 809
One news report stated the backup cooling generators got flooded.
rh200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 02:36
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
galaxy flyer

That's a pretty scary observation there
Well, when you consider how crappy our media is, it's not a surprise at all.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 03:18
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 63
Posts: 619
I live in the Los Angeles area and have been sitting here wondering if we'll see a major rush on bottled water at supermarkets. Just waiting for that big one
Human nature suggests that would be the case. That said, if you live in California and you are not prepared for an earthquake, then you better get prepared.

If you plan for three days on your own, no outside help, you are at the minimum of preparedness.
11Fan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 04:25
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 351
BBC now reporting a second nuclear plant having problems. "State of Emergency" declared.

Stuff of nightmares.
The "stuff of nightmares" is a tsunami that wipes tens or hundreds of people out of existence in a few minutes, not some piddly cooling issue in a tiny nuclear plant somewhere.

I'm just amazed by the difference between the dangers people perceive and the dangers that actually threaten their lives. The problem in Japan is a gigantic earthquake and a huge tsunami, not some nuclear-plant malfunction somewhere. Even if all those nuclear plants broke open and spewed out radioactive dust, their effects on the population would pale in comparison to what the earthquake and tsunamis have done.

In the U.K. itself, the massive Windscale accident in 1957 produced only 240 deaths directly over a period of years. The tsunamis in Japan killed that many people in the first few seconds after their arrival.

I think people need to get a grip and get a clue, and realize that the dangers they fear and the dangers that actually threaten their lives are often very different. If you spend your time worrying and preparing for the wrong dangers, you end up just as dead as if you had never worried or prepared at all.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 04:52
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 63
Posts: 619
Feel better now that you got that off your chest there Anthony?
11Fan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 05:00
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 351
Feel better now that you got that off your chest there Anthony?
Human psychology is a perpetual juggernaut unimpeded by the small, weak voice of reason.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 05:30
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 92
Indeed.
"The crisis at a damaged Japanese nuclear power plant is serious but not as dangerous as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, says a leading Canadian expert in nuclear safety."
Not as dangerous. Probably the 'how dangerous exactly' is just impossible to say - depending on so many factors.
Sure, probably most people would not 'end up dead', they would just have to live with it - besides, there's no way to prove the loss of hair and/or a tumor after a while that gets bad in a couple of years is due to radiation. Like it happened with some friends of ours who had the fate of being downwind from Chernobyl. Hundreds of kilometres away. Could have been their weak immune system or something.
Nobody gets the exact medical data about the people who lived near the reactor in Chernobyl.
"More importantly, unlike Chernobyl in Ukraine, Japanese nuclear power plants also have hardened containment structures over them." Even more importantly, they warn people about the potential hazard. But of course, like a specialist said about the warning signs: "The trouble with foreshocks is you never know they are foreshocks before the major earthquake happens." The Soviet authorities didn't know either, or just hoped it won't be that bad.
But what's reason got to do with that.
You just get extra-big mushrooms around the nuclear plant afterwards, as seen from the documentary about Chernobyl.

Last edited by probes; 12th Mar 2011 at 06:04.
probes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 05:57
  #152 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 890
" produced only 240 deaths directly over a period "

That must have come as a great consolation for those involved then....phew! what a relief !.....

So, lets get this correct then.....a country gets hit by (a) a rather signficant eathquake (b) an devastating tsunami and then has the distinct possibility of nuclear radiation to contend with....but that's OK as it won't be as devastating as the first two......erm, just remind us all please as to the long term effects of radiation and its, for want of a better term, shelf life....

Now, unless I am very much mistaken, with the first two elements, the damage can be repaired relatively quickly...the last one however, does take a shade longer to disperse.....would this not suggest that for those affected, they may have some rather justifiable concerns.....??..
Krystal n chips is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 06:29
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 809
I think he was making a comparative statement, some people seem to think that we are going to get multiple meltdowns and mushroom clouds. Though I don't know, some so called experts are stating that they are light water reactors and even if they meltdown don't explode. perhaps there's someone here who can confirm that statement.

You are seeing people wondering, whats happening to nature etc etc, the answer is nothing. People have to get over the fact that nature can wipe us all of the map without working up a sweat if it wanted, and there ain't jack we can do about it.
rh200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 06:51
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 351
"The crisis at a damaged Japanese nuclear power plant is serious but not as dangerous as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, says a leading Canadian expert in nuclear safety."
That may be eligible for an award as understatement of the year. The trivial but sensationalized nuclear risk in Japan is to Chernobyl as my bank account balance is to that of Carlos Slim.

Anyone who smokes regularly has fully a 50% chance of dying young from a disease caused by that smoking. I don't see anyone in a panic about that. Anyone who rides in a car has a better chance of dying during one ride than he would have of contracting cancer due to living 50 km from Chernobyl. Anyone who rides in a jet airplane is exposed to radiation significantly in excess of what he would be exposed to if he stayed on the ground.

People are just way, way off in their estimation and understanding of risks. I don't know how much of it is due to media sensationalism and propaganda from special-interest groups, and how much comes from simple ignorance of the most basic scientific principles. Perhaps reading books would be a better way to learn about science than watching CNN. But I think most people just prefer to be issued their opinions wholesale by others rather than look anything up and form opinions on their own.

That must have come as a great consolation for those involved then....phew! what a relief !
Agreed. A total of 240 deaths over 30 years is certainly orders of magnitude better than 250,000 deaths in 30 minutes. While the 240 who die aren't helped by this, the 249,760 who survive indisputably are.

So, lets get this correct then.....a country gets hit by (a) a rather signficant eathquake (b) an devastating tsunami and then has the distinct possibility of nuclear radiation to contend with....but that's OK as it won't be as devastating as the first two..
Yes, that's exactly correct.

Now, unless I am very much mistaken, with the first two elements, the damage can be repaired relatively quickly...the last one however, does take a shade longer to disperse.....would this not suggest that for those affected, they may have some rather justifiable concerns.....??
You are indeed very much mistaken, so your question is moot.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 07:29
  #155 (permalink)  

Eight Gun Fighter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,127
Prepare Now for an Earthquake in British Columbia

For those in the ring of fire
Rollingthunder is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 07:36
  #156 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 890
" You are indeed very much mistaken, so your question is moot "

Really ? So, lets get this straight to alleviate my confusion here.

An earthquake, tsunami, land slide, flood or indeed any form of natural distaster can and does leave collateral damage to the infrastructure and environment.....when the causal factors have abated, the damage can and is repaired.....

Nuclear radiation however, and yes I know there are various forms, does as far as I am aware tend to be insidious and has a life that can span decades, if not centuries....it cannot simply be removed and leave no lasting effects.

So how, to your way of thinking, is the argument moot.

You do appear to have a very cavalier, dismissive and arrogant perception as to the value of human life and the effects of disasters on people given that your proposals are seemingly purely numerically based.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 07:43
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,102
Just a technical questions on nuclear reactors. The fuel produces heat which heats a liquid that goes outside and turns the generator. If the reaction is shut down in an emergency the heat is still produced hence the need to have a running cooling system.

My question is why we can't use the heat to keep producing energy (if the circuit is intact) hence cooling down the reactor by its own means?

Rwy in Sight
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 07:48
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,477
People/idiots are now claiming it is to do with Global Warming/CO2 etc!!

Twitter Blames Japan Earthquake on Global Warming | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
aviate1138 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 07:55
  #159 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,772
These idiots are insane!!!!!
SOPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2011, 08:09
  #160 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
What is far more likely to cause problems is that the moons perigee, at 356,577kms from earth, on the 19th march, the closest for 19 years, could exert a stronger gravitational force that will find any weakness in any fault line world wide.

The gravitational force is not affected by any Global Warning. I can say that without any fear of contradiction, because nobody can say with any degree of certainty that it is.
 
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service