Some perspective on Japanese earthquake...

[onyx1]

...from local with first hand knowledge.

 

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-japan-earthquake/

 

 

[nodnub]

very interesting, thank you.

[Myth465]

very interesting, thank you.

[woodstove]

Thanks - yes very interesting.  I'll pass the link on to others.

[Alekbaylee]

Interesting indeed to see how organized they are but still... given the instability of the area (prone to quakes), I'm surprised their engineers didn't come up with a better cooling system...

[tengen]

Interesting indeed to see how organized they are but still... given the instability of the area (prone to quakes), I'm surprised their engineers didn't come up with a better cooling system...

 

As I understand it, the cooling system would have been fine if the tsunami had not taken out the backup power generators. A rather dumb design flaw in retrospect.

[nodnub]

Interesting indeed to see how organized they are but still... given the instability of the area (prone to quakes), I'm surprised their engineers didn't come up with a better cooling system...

Alek,

 

I had the same intitial thought when I heard that the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling systems.  ( I mean, who builds a reactor on the seashore and doesn't plan for tsunamis).  

 

This is no excuse---but it's important to remember that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases 1000 times more energy than a 7.0

 

[Alekbaylee]

I mean, who builds a reactor on the seashore and doesn't plan for tsunamis. 

 

Precisely. And this time around, unlike the BP spill and other disasters, we can't blame the private sector...

 

Anyway, let's hope that this teaches the whole world about the dangers of nuclear.

After all, we're all concerned as there's no "spare planet" where to go.

[twacowfca]

Interesting indeed to see how organized they are but still... given the instability of the area (prone to quakes), I'm surprised their engineers didn't come up with a better cooling system...

Alek,

 

I had the same intitial thought when I heard that the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling systems.  ( I mean, who builds a reactor on the seashore and doesn't plan for tsunamis).  

 

This is no excuse---but it's important to remember that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases 1000 times more energy than a 7.0

 

 

Or is it 100 times more energy?

[tombgrt]

Interesting indeed to see how organized they are but still... given the instability of the area (prone to quakes), I'm surprised their engineers didn't come up with a better cooling system...

Alek,

 

I had the same intitial thought when I heard that the tsunami knocked out the backup cooling systems.  ( I mean, who builds a reactor on the seashore and doesn't plan for tsunamis).  

 

This is no excuse---but it's important to remember that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases 1000 times more energy than a 7.0

 

 

Or is it 100 times more energy?

 

Thus, a difference in magnitude of 1.0 is equivalent to a factor of 31.6 ( = (101.0)(3 / 2)) in the energy released; a difference in magnitude of 2.0 is equivalent to a factor of 1000 ( = (102.0)(3 / 2) ) in the energy released.[2]

 

Crazy hu.. :)

 

 

 

 

[Myth465]

The guys who came up with the earthquake scale suck. I mean can we have a bit more variability. 6-8 is like 1000 times worse, thats nuts. I remember the talk during Haiti but I cant imagine the ground shaking at a 6, and then it shaking 1000 times more / worse.

[tombgrt]

It is not "times worse" or "times more shaking" but "times more energy".  :)

 

Wiki says 6 is the equivalent of the energy released from big nuclear bomb and 8 is the equivalent for a meteor of 150-200m in diameter hitting earth.

 

[Myth465]

It is not "times worse" or "times more shaking" but "times more energy".  :)

 

Wiki says 6 is the equivalent of the energy released from big nuclear bomb and 8 is the equivalent for a meteor of 150-200m in diameter hitting earth.

 

 

IC, either way we need a bit more difference than 2.0 units lol. Perhaps these numbers are just too big to be captured in a simple system. One is like a punch in the face, the next is like being run over by a car, and the last like being dropped from the sky 20,000 feet up.  :)

 

Its like how does one capture that.

[doc75]

Anyone have any idea why the energy of the quake scales with roughly the 3/2 power of amplitude?

 

e.g. 7.0 --> 9.0 is a 10^2 or 100 fold increase in "shake amplitude" as measured by seismograph, which then amounts to the quoted 100^(1.5)=1000 fold increase in energy. 

 

Apparently this is a general law.  Just curious if the 3/2 power should be somehow clear.  The energy transmitted by a waveform is generally proportional to the square of amplitude, but of course we're not talking about a simple wave so I wouldn't expect that to apply here.