8.9 Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan

Original post by Fusilero

A little aside but Tsunamis and Earthquakes aren't related to the Climate. We could be choking on a 50% CO2 atmosphere and the rate of Earthquakes will remain similar.

Actually the climate could affect the rate of earthquakes.

Reply 603

F_shakeey

4

Original post by Zottula

Actually the climate could affect the rate of earthquakes.

How so?

Reply 604

Mad Vlad

19

A full meltdown only defines a breach of the molten core from the reactor pressure vessel. Aj12 is correct in what he says, insofar as there will not be significant biological impact should the primary containment building (which includes the reactor's basement - the wetwell torus) remain intact.

Reply 605

Aj12

18

So explain it then

There is meant to be a containment area underneath the reactor which would stop a meltdown doing to much damage

Reply 606

Original post by Zottula

Actually the climate could affect the rate of earthquakes.

How?

Reply 607

Original post by F_shakeey

How so?

Original post by bikerx23

How?

Well global warming leads to melting of the ice sheets and when the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that can trigger earthquakes. The rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults. :smile:

Obviously this may have nothing to do with the Japanese earthquake, but the point is that climate change could influence the rate of earthquakes. Not many peeps are aware of how climate change could affect tectonic activity, but I find this sort of thing very interesting.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 608

Original post by Zottula

Well global warming leads to melting of the ice sheets and when the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that can trigger earthquakes. The rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults. :smile:

Obviously this may have nothing to do with the Japanese earthquake, but the point is that climate change could influence the rate of earthquakes. Not many peeps are aware of how climate change could affect tectonic activity, but I find this sort of thing very interesting.

Ah, ok - I thought you were talking in the context of this event (increased frequency of high energy seismic events in past 10 years being quoted by some - not statistically significant at all!)

In reality, isostatic readjustment may not significantly impact the frequency of earthquakes, since it is heavily influenced by the speed at which the mantle can rebound, however, it is likely to impact the distribution of earthquakes (reduced rates of intra-crustal movement because of central plate flexing).

In reality, the rate at which earthquakes can vary is still predicted to be within natural variation. Still, it might sell a few more books for Bill...

Reply 609

Original post by bikerx23

Ah, ok - I thought you were talking in the context of this event (increased frequency of high energy seismic events in past 10 years being quoted by some - not statistically significant at all!)

In reality, isostatic readjustment may not significantly impact the frequency of earthquakes, since it is heavily influenced by the speed at which the mantle can rebound, however, it is likely to impact the distribution of earthquakes (reduced rates of intra-crustal movement because of central plate flexing).

In reality, the rate at which earthquakes can vary is still predicted to be within natural variation. Still, it might sell a few more books for Bill...

Yeah I was just talking generally as someone didn't realise there was any link at all.

Reply 610

F_shakeey

4

Original post by Zottula

Well global warming leads to melting of the ice sheets and when the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that can trigger earthquakes. The rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults. :smile:

Obviously this may have nothing to do with the Japanese earthquake, but the point is that climate change could influence the rate of earthquakes. Not many peeps are aware of how climate change could affect tectonic activity, but I find this sort of thing very interesting.

Ah I see thanks for he insight, still however the main problem I suppose regarding earthquakes is that it is extremely hard to predict them , they are very few and inaccurate ways of foreshadowing an earthquake and so whereas with hurricanes and volcanoes you can predict them (hurricanes very easily since they form in the ocean and take time to arrive) with earthquakes this isnt possible.

In relevance to the thread however, Japanese officials are stating that they are doing their utmost best to contain problems at the nuclear reactors. 'contain' doesnt sound good to me...lets hope they sort it out as soon as possible.

Reply 611

Original post by F_shakeey

Ah I see thanks for he insight, still however the main problem I suppose regarding earthquakes is that it is extremely hard to predict them , they are very few and inaccurate ways of foreshadowing an earthquake and so whereas with hurricanes and volcanoes you can predict them (hurricanes very easily since they form in the ocean and take time to arrive) with earthquakes this isnt possible.

In relevance to the thread however, Japanese officials are stating that they are doing their utmost best to contain problems at the nuclear reactors. 'contain' doesnt sound good to me...lets hope they sort it out as soon as possible.

Volcanoes aren't any easier to predict than earthquakes, however, we're quite fortunate that they tend to occur in obviously locations, hence it is easier to mitigate against their impact.

With nuclear power stations contain is a technical term - they operate a system of defense in depth, one of the elements of which is effective containment of nuclear material within the pressure vessel. As long as this is not compromised the risks are relatively small.

Reply 612

Original post by F_shakeey

Ah I see thanks for he insight, still however the main problem I suppose regarding earthquakes is that it is extremely hard to predict them , they are very few and inaccurate ways of foreshadowing an earthquake and so whereas with hurricanes and volcanoes you can predict them (hurricanes very easily since they form in the ocean and take time to arrive) with earthquakes this isnt possible.

In relevance to the thread however, Japanese officials are stating that they are doing their utmost best to contain problems at the nuclear reactors. 'contain' doesnt sound good to me...lets hope they sort it out as soon as possible.

Yeah unfortunately it's all so vague at the moment. If only we could predict these things :frown:

. When I'm older I hope to study earthquakes and maybe in future we'll find better ways of predicting them. Who knows :dontknow:

The whole issue with the nuclear power station is pretty scary. I keep hearing reports of this explosion and that explosion, people being exposed to radiation etc. I'm really hoping it all gets sorted soon. I just feel so bad for everyone having to deal with everything that's happened to them.

Reply 613

CurlyBen

19

Original post by Zottula

The whole issue with the nuclear power station is pretty scary. I keep hearing reports of this explosion and that explosion, people being exposed to radiation etc. I'm really hoping it all gets sorted soon. I just feel so bad for everyone having to deal with everything that's happened to them.

So far, despite some reports verging on the hysterical, there hasn't been a major radiation leak. That would suggest that, at least for now, that the measures taken to ensure safety from a radiological point of view have been effective. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned, such as how to safely vent hydrogen, and it's probably going to cost at least two reactor cores, but that's a pretty minor inconvenience. There's also been plenty of inaccurate reports - one particularly badly phrased BBC article implied that a nuclear meltdown was an automatic shutdown sequence that happened in the event of an earthquake. It very definitely is not - a lot of the reporters could do with a quick read of Wikipedia before opening their mouths!

Reply 614

muffingg

18

Does anyone else think that the natural disasters have massively increased since 2010? Haiti, Pakistan Floods, Chile,... some of the most devastating disasters ever have happened in the past just over a year. :frown:

Just hope it gets better very soon for Japan. I think people should think for a few minutes about it in detail about how people are suffering in Japan these days and contribute and help in whatever way they can do, may it be £1.

Reply 615

Original post by Hennnaa

Actually, we're going through the process of the poles swapping, it's not just a quick change, it takes time.
The moon is to blame to some extent, it's actually come closer to us, causing the Tsumani from the earthquake, or something like that. It's what I've heard, I'm no geophysicist, so don't kill me for being a bit stupid :redface:

God Bless

Just to clarify: whilst the earth's magnetic pole has sown evidence of weakening, this does not mean that the poles are in the process of swapping. Whilst there are geological records of this having occurred, the level of detail to relate it to the measurements we are making now is not available. We simply cannot know.

Also, the moon is not to blame to any extent - if it were there would be tsunami's everywhere. Also, the moon has not come closer to the earth - it is at the closest part of it's orbit at approximately this time of year. It is in fact moving away from the earth at the rate of approximately 1/4" per year.

If you think about it, were this to be the case, solar eclipses would result in various catastrophes as the moon and sun combined (fortunately the impact is negligible).

Reply 616

Original post by CurlyBen

So far, despite some reports verging on the hysterical, there hasn't been a major radiation leak. That would suggest that, at least for now, that the measures taken to ensure safety from a radiological point of view have been effective. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned, such as how to safely vent hydrogen, and it's probably going to cost at least two reactor cores, but that's a pretty minor inconvenience. There's also been plenty of inaccurate reports - one particularly badly phrased BBC article implied that a nuclear meltdown was an automatic shutdown sequence that happened in the event of an earthquake. It very definitely is not - a lot of the reporters could do with a quick read of Wikipedia before opening their mouths!

There was a great one earlier on the times website that suggested the control rods were the things in the reactor potentially melting, not the fuel elements (don't see why everyone has started calling them fuel rods, as that nomenclature is never used for precisely this reason!).

The production of hydrogen is not part of the normal operation of this type of reactor (or at least in any great volume) hence it was always likely to lead to problems. Fortunately, all of the stations operating in the UK are not prone to such faults, so we have little to worry about.

Reply 617

Student2806

17

Original post by bikerx23

Volcanoes aren't any easier to predict than earthquakes, however, we're quite fortunate that they tend to occur in obviously locations, hence it is easier to mitigate against their impact.

Not really.
Volcanoes have numerous subtle ways of telling us they're going to erupt (seismic activity, bulging, gaseous venting etc). OK it's not an exact science and sometimes these things happen without being followed by an actual eruption - but unlike earthquakes, few volcanic eruptions occur in the click of a finger and without any warning.

Reply 618

F_shakeey

4

Original post by Student2806

Not really.
Volcanoes have numerous subtle ways of telling us they're going to erupt (seismic activity, bulging, gaseous venting etc). OK it's not an exact science and sometimes these things happen without being followed by an actual eruption - but unlike earthquakes, few volcanic eruptions occur in the click of a finger and without any warning.

All the above is true and just to add on that research upon volcanoes unfrotunatly is much more extensive than earthquakes, earthquakes happen all the time but they are so weak we dont notice them however such massive earthquakes like the one in Japan cannot be determined at all, they are aftershocks but not foreshocks - if only there was then predicting them would be far easier :smile:

Reply 619