CNN An 8.8-magnitude earthquake has struck Japan

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Praying for everybody over in Japan and the Western Pacific right now... hopefully now that the warning is out, anybody further away has time to get to further ground.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Luckily, if it reaches the Americas, it wouldn't be as severe, so South America would hae the least to worry about.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

MSNBC just reported the West Coast is under the warning too, a friend in Washington was just notified.

So far the only thing issued has been a Tsunami Information Statement.  No watch, warning, or advisory for any portion of the U.S. other than Hawaii.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

West coast is not under anything.  Straight from the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Similar message for California.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The message for the latest Japan event is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the last things issued for the U.S. (outside of Hawaii) are days old.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The coastal U.S. and Canada get their warnings issued by the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WC/ATWC).  The rest of the Pacific is issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC).  Different forecasters have differnent opinions on whether or not it should be issued.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Advisory for part of Alaska, meaning the damage isn't expected to be great, if there is any.  The usually overestimate these things as a precaution, so if anything, I think we'll see minimal impacts on Alaska, but that's about it.

I'm guessing the watch will be cancelled, but there's the possibility of an upgrade to an advisory (I don't see that as likely).  But I really don't see a warning being issued for the continental U.S. if just an advisory was issued for Alaska.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Also, the fact that it's just an advisory for Alaska would lead me to believe the effects on South America won't be that bad, if they have any.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The fact that the PTWC issued a warning this far out seems premature to me.  If they end up cancelling it, it sets a bad precedent and leads the public to take them less seriously in the future.  I think the WC/ATWC was correct in issuing a watch for the West Coast.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

WCATWC site seems to be getting very overloaded right now... and so far, from what you guys have been posting, the media doesn't seem to be very accurate in saying what has/hasn't been issued.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Google has this on their homepage: Tsunami Alert for New Zealand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, and others. Waves expected over the next few hours, caused by 8.9 earthquake in Japan.


Good idea by them on a way to get the word out.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From the WCATWC:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The DART censors are reporting that "A LARGE TSUNAMI HAS BEEN GENERATED."

Hawaii is expected to be hit around 8:00 A.M. EST.  I can't get the ETA page to load for the latest warnings, but it'd be sometime after 8:00 A.M.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I found this part of the Hawaii Warning message somewhat interesting: "A TSUNAMI IS A SERIES OF LONG OCEAN WAVES...WHICH ARE NOT SURFABLE."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A new product was just issued with more observations, but no changes to Warnings/Advisories.

This message was also included: "TSUNAMI AMPLITUDES ARE EXPECTED TO PEAK TWO TO THREE HOURS AFTER INITIAL ARRIVAL ALONG THE NORTH AMERICAN COAST."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Also, the tsunami will pass 6 DART buoys before it really reachesareas close to the U.S., so that'll be a good way to gauge how bad it may be.

For those interested, here's a map of what's been issued:

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Tsunami arrival estimates from PTWC/Radio NZ Intl (9:25 AM UTC/4:25 AM EST)

This includes a few more cities along the coast: http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/2011/03/11/lhvpd9/05/webetalhvpd9-05.txt

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Adak, the westernmost municipality in the United States and the southernmost city in Alaska, should be getting hit right about now if the tsunami is going to hit Alaska.  Unfortunately, communication in Adak is very poor, so we may not have reports from AK until it hits Dutch Harbor.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is fascinating... I'm actually watching the buoys and seeing them measure the water column height changes as the tsunami passes: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart.shtml

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is tossing boats around in Santa Cruz.

Apparently it's been reported that the Harbor has been completely destroyed.

There was damage, but it is far from completely destroyed.

I'm going off AP Reports.

Apparently Radiation levels have surged at that power plant.

I just watched videos; 100 boats damaged with 20 sunk, but still more are afloat.

The reactor is at 150% of normal pressure.  Backup coolant pumps have failed as well.

I would've figured with this much warning, they'd try to get as many of the boats out to see until the tsunami was over.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

F**k nuclear energy !

I hope you're joking.  That's an extremely immature way to react to something like this.  Accidents can happen in all kinds of power plants.  Nuclear energy still remains a relatively safe way of generating power.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have nothing to say on this topic except of course to add the obvious that any chance of a nuclear revival will be killed stone dead if this thing does blow. Which is probably for the best, there are simply too many variables for nuclear energy to considered 100% safe (though of course nothing can be).

But what is "safe"?  Nuclear plants are viewed as unsafe, because when the worst happens, it involves **GASP** radiation.  And that word strikes fear into the hearts of people.

Is gas safe?  Nope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8I7CcBiVlE or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Connecticut_power_plant_explosion)

Coal?  Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill).  That's just the power plant... not even talking about coal mines.

Wind?  Nope (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html)

I wasn't able to verify the sources on this one, but even if his facts aren't correct, it illustrates the point that no power source is 100% safe, and people overreact because "nuclear" has dangerous conotations: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, to be honest, there are probably locations in the world where nuclear power shouldn't be considered as much (earthquake-prone areas, coastal areas, etc.), but if you want to stick it in the middle of the U.S. or the middle of Europe, it's probably pretty safe there.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

As for asteroids... that could hit anything anywhere and blow it up.  Using that as an excuse would be like using that as an excuse against any plants that process explosives.  As for tornadoes, a strong concrete and steel building (which is what most, if not all, reactor buildings are constructed of) would survive most tornadoes, including most EF5s we've observed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

. . . and the map hoax gets more alarmist and elaborate.

Pacific [ultra-low voice]DEADZONE[/ultra-low voice]

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But Beet, the New Madrid Fault Line has significantly less intense earthquakes.  They haven't had an earthquake that reached 6.0 magnitude in over 100 years.

When's the last time Japan had a 9.0 magnitude quake? The Great Kanto quake, e.g. Tokyo earthquake of 1923, was only 7.9 in magnitude, e.g. this quake was 10 times worse than that in amplitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a nuclear meltdown could spread damage over a far greater area and longer time than an explosives plant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reactors are Fukushima were not knocked down and I'm not talking about reactors. I'm talking about the backup power generators. I've already posted an example where a hurricane took out a power generator above.

But the mid-U.S. hasn't had close to even a 7.9 in a long time.  The earthquakes there are generally weaker.  Your argument against the spreading damage would go for anything that can spread damage over a wide area... at the point we have a large asteroid strike, the nuclear impacts won't matter as much.  And the likeliness of a meteorite hitting and damaging it is so small.

As for tornadoes/hurricanes, if we're just talking about back-up generators failing, plants have contingency plans for what to do when severe weather approaches, and the generators have worked in the 2 instances I know of.  And, there's always the option to take a plant offline temporarily when a hurricane approaches (not quite as much warning time with a tornado, but the likeliness of that is smaller).