National Geographic: The Recent Earthquake Wave on the Coast of Japan (1896)
Video of 1933 Quake
(Also a 1964 clip of the Niigata quake here)
Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Bucky wrote:From the National Geographic story:
. . . you would think with this sort of history that seawalls or breakwaters would have been specced much higher than what they are. I seem to recall the Fukushima seawall as being a max of 20 feet tall. Doh!:wall:
dimwit wrote:Or given the frequency of earthquake-induced tsunamis not build nucleur reactors anywhere on the Pacific coast side of Japan.
Seawalls probably give people in the affected communities an extra minute at most to flee the tsunami. Were they to have been higher they would have cost much more than the value of the property they were protecting. The biggest problem with them is that they gave far to many people a false sense of security, in building residental areas far to close to the sea on lowlaying land. Worse still causing many to not immediately flee to higher ground on the assumption that the seawall would hold the water back.
Mulboyne wrote:What struck me, reading about the 1896 tsunami, is that the waves may have reached heights of up to 100ft even though the quake itself didn't seem to be of a magnitude to produce that reaction.
It appears that there is a type of earthquake called a "tsunami earthquake" where this discrepancy is very pronounced. TEPCO's planning didn't seem to consider this possibility and you wonder which other parts of the country are also ignoring that risk.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 84 guests