Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Week 7: Japanese experts warn of earthquakes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk

If another earthquake greater than 9.0 was to happen in Nankai off the Japanese island of Honshu most of the Japanese Pacific Coast would be hit by a tsunami 34 meters tall. In 2003, the maximum height for a tsunami was 20 meters. The nuclear plant damaged last March was built to withstand a 6 meter wave. The Hamoaka nuclear plant is building an 18 meter wall around the plant. This plant was closed last year because there's a 90% chance in the next thirty years an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 would trigger a 21 meter tsunami hitting the plant. I'm glad the Japanese government is doing something to protect their nuclear plants but I'm worried it still isn't enough.

3 comments:

  1. I agree it is good that they are taking these steps now, but I don’t think a 18 meter high wall will be big enough, especially because they are predicting the tsunami’s wave next time to almost double in size. I think they need to find some other way to protect these nuclear plants. Therefore they should move on to other options, like maybe using some kind of technology since this is our greatest and always changing resources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Megan, while this is will protect the plant from some things, it won't stand a chance stopping a massive 34 foot tsunami. Digging a deep ditch to surround the plant might help the problem, so the tsunami would sink and then be stopped by the wall. We need to find a good solution fast, or Japan is going to be completely wiped out in the next 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obviously, this type of natural disaster for this area is a big issue, therefore any bit of effort helps. Although, I don't believe we should applaud these efforts too much, because they do not solve the issue entirely. I believe that Japan should take FULL precautions, and even over precautions, by building a greater wall or dig into the ground. It's better to be certainly protected than not.

    ReplyDelete