THE BIG ONE

[FG Lurker]

(...amputated from home buying)

If something like that ever were to happen (a serious Kanto earthquake)

If? If!? WHEN! It is only a matter of time until the next "big one", and I don't mean only for Tokyo, but anywhere in Japan. The fault that caused the 1995 Kobe quake was not known to exist before the quake hit.

Your points are all valid but the thread is about buying a house and value of land in Tokyo.

Actually, this thread was about buying land and building a house in rural Shimane... It seems to have been hijacked.

What I am saying but did not make it clear is that under a disaster scenario as you describe, if it were to happen, you would not need to worry about the value of the land you live on. You'd have so many other problems that real estate value would be the last thing in your mind.

Having watched Kobe and other affected areas recover from the 1995 quake I can say that this is a complete load of shit. (Not surprising considering who said it...)

.... buy land only in Tokyo

I own land in Osaka city and on an island in the Inland Sea. The Osaka land has increased in value since I bought it about a year ago. I got the inland sea island land for half appraised value, but it is doubtful if I could sell it easily at the current time. (Which is fine since I have no desire to sell it.)

[Jack]

If? If!? WHEN! It is only a matter of time until the next "big one", and I don't mean only for Tokyo, but anywhere in Japan. The fault that caused the 1995 Kobe quake was not known to exist before the quake hit.

Having watched Kobe and other affected areas recover from the 1995 quake I can say that this is a complete load of shit. (Not surprising considering who said it...)

OK moron, I mean Lurker, was the Kobe earthquake THE BIG ONE? We are talking about THE BIG ONE right? When that fucker hits, talk to me about land values then, you fucking moron. When Hiroshima was vaporised no one would give a lesser fuck about the value of their property. FUCK OFF.
Now I feel better.

[Mulboyne]

When Hiroshima was vaporised no one would give a lesser fuck about the value of their property.

Of course they did. They had to because it was a matter of survival. If land is your only or primary asset and you want to eat then you care a great deal about establishing title and seeing whether you can raise any cash against it.

In the event of a disaster, you need to decide whether to rebuild or relocate. The authorities will probably have to issue compulsory purchase orders and their assessed values provide a benchmark for everywhere else. There's certainly nothing academic, moot or irrelevant about that.

[drpepper]

OK moron, I mean Lurker, was the Kobe earthquake THE BIG ONE? We are talking about THE BIG ONE right? When that fucker hits, talk to me about land values then, you fucking moron. When Hiroshima was vaporised no one would give a lesser fuck about the value of their property. FUCK OFF.
Now I feel better.

Wow...... well it was certainly big enough, the kobe quake that is. The big one expected to hit Tokyo will be bigger but not like it is gonna be a 9.5m or anything. Big like 7.8m shit will survive unlike hiroshima which was a stupid comparison. Any potential quake in Tokyo can be big without it being the big one.

And really... was that tone really called for?

[FG Lurker]

Wow...... well it was certainly big enough, the kobe quake that is. The big one expected to hit Tokyo will be bigger but not like it is gonna be a 9.5m or anything. Big like 7.8m shit will survive unlike hiroshima which was a stupid comparison. Any potential quake in Tokyo can be big without it being the big one. And really... was that tone really called for?

Jack has no idea what he's talking about. It's funny to read his posts cause he has some sort of small penis complex, but beyond that he's basically worthless.

[Buraku]

The big one is normally something unexpected and something the government is unprepared for,

for America, it was a bunch of crazy muslim kamikazes hijacking 4 plane and destroying the WTC during 911

for Japanese it was the big quake

for Londoners it was the great fire or Hitler's V2 rockets







The next big one for Japan might also be unique, one of the Japanese dormant volcanoes like Fuji decides to blow it's top ( the Japanese living on the Pacific Ring of Fire have tens of volcanoes taht could become lethal ),

or perhaps one of Japan's many nuclear reactors goes kaboom, maybe in 10 years time N.K and S.Korea will unite only then to turn their agression on Nippon, or a super tsunami wipes out Tokyo ?


If and when the next big one hits you can be sure the J-gov won't see it coming

[kurohinge1]

If we're talking about events that're not man-made, then here's some interesting reading about some of the more dramatic tricks in the bag of Mother Nature:

[SIZE="3"]Earthquake Facts and Follies[/SIZE]

. . . A magnitude 9.5 earthquake in Chile in 1960 was the largest known earthquake and resulted in over 6,000 deaths. It triggered a tsunami or seismic wave (incorrectly known as a tidal wave) that killed people as far away as Hawaii and Japan . . . more

[SIZE="3"]Krakatau Volcano in 1883[/SIZE]

. . . 3. Giant waves reached heights of 40 m above sea level, devastating everything in their path and hurling ashore coral blocks weighing as much as 600 tons.

4. At least 36,417 people were killed, most by the giant sea waves, and 165 coastal villages were destroyed.

5. When the eruption ended only 1/3 of Krakatau, formerly 5x9 km, remained above sea level, and new islands of steaming pumice and ash lay to the north where the sea had been 36 m deep.

6. Every recording barograph in the world ducumented the passage of the airwave, some as many as 7 times as the wave bounced back and forth between the eruption site and its antipodes for 5 days after the explosion.

7. Tide gauges also recorded the sea wave's passage far from Krakatau. The wave "reached Aden in 12 hours, a distance of 3800 nautical miles, usually traversed by a good steamer in 12 days".

8. Blue and green suns were observed as fine ash and aerosol, erupted perhaps 50 km into the stratosphere, circled the equator in 13 days.

9. Theree months after the eruption these products had spread to higher latitudes causing such vivid red sunset afterglows that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration. Unusual sunsets continued for 3 years.

10. Rafts of floating pumice-locally thick enouth to support men, trees, and no doubt other biological passengers-crossed the indian Ocean in 10 months. Others reached Melanesia, and were still afloat two years after the eruption.

11. The volcanic dust veil that created such spectacular atmospheric effects also acted as a solar radiation filter, lowering global temperatures as much as 1.2 degree C in the year after the eruption. Temperatures did not return to normal until 1888 . . . more

[SIZE="3"]Meteors, Meteorites and Impacts[/SIZE]

. . . Data from 'The Impact Hazard', by Morrison, Chapman and Slovic, published in Hazards due to Comets and Asteroids [paraphrased]:

1. On average, every 1000 years, a 10-100 megaton impact destroys an area the size of a city.
   
2. On average, every 5000 years, a 100-1,000 megaton impact destroys an area the size of a large urban area like New York or Tokyo.
   
3. On average, every 15,000 years, a 1,000-10,000 megaton impact destroys an area size of small state; ocean impact produces mild tsunamis.
   
4. On average, every 63,000 years, a 10,000-100,000 megaton impact destroys an area size of moderate state (Virginia); ocean impact makes big tsunamis.
   
5. On average, every 250,000 years, a 100,000-1,000,000 megaton impact raises dust with global implication; destroys area size of large state (California, France).

. . . more

Have a nice day.

[Kuang_Grade]

While a side question in the overall flame war, how does Japanese home insurance interplay with earthquake induced fires? While I have no doubt that when the 'big one' happens, there will be sizable destruction in various areas and of older housing stock but looking at historical damage caused by fires after major earthquakes (Tokyo, San Francisco), fire seems to be as big or bigger threat to life and property. While more recent earthquakes in Taipei or Mexico City didn't have large fires, looking down the average narrow side street and J folks preference for gas cooking doesn't fill me with confidence that will be the case in Tokyo. And looking at many of the insurance disputes in the US after Katrina (many people had house insurance that covered most things except floods, which a separate policy, and fewer people had flood coverage...now there are many disputes about what insurance companies are calling flood damage to homes (not covered in most cases) but were likely wind damage, which would be covered under most home policies), I wonder how fire damage would be handled in Japan after an earthquake...or is this a moot issue since housing stock is considered a fast depreciating asset and not really worth insuring for this sort event?

[Blah Pete]

While a side question in the overall flame war, how does Japanese home insurance interplay with earthquake induced fires?

From what I remember lots of people in Kobe got screwed over ny their insurance companies.
That huge fire that burned for days and spread through a few neighborhoods was determined to be caused by an earthquake, therefore if you didn't happen to have that specific policy then you were not covered. The problem was the original fire may have been started in one or two houses by the earthquake but it spread to many others due to lack of firefighting capability.

My grandmother, and many other San Francisco natives who lived through the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake always referred to it as the Great Fire not the Great Earthquake because the fire seemed more destructive.

[Mulboyne]

At the risk of sending you into a coma, I know a little about the insurance side.

Damage caused by earthquake fires is specifically excluded from standard fire insurance policies. You can buy earthquake insurance to include that cover but it is generally regarded as unsatisfactory. There are different types of insurance scheme but the main one for homeowners was set up after the 1964 Niigata earthquake and is regulated by the 1966 Earthquake Insurance Law.

Insurance companies offer this earthquake insurance policy as an optional rider to a normal fire insurance policy. You cannot take it out independently and the coverage must be at least 30% and not more than 50% of the coverage of the main fire policy. Premiums range between 0.5% and 3.55% depending on your house and its location. The insurance companies pass 100% of the business they write onto an entity set up by the 1966 Law called Japan Earthquake Reinsurance. In any one financial year, there is a limit on payouts of 4.5 trillion yen. If claims amount to more than this then individual payouts are scaled back on a pro rata basis.

At the last count, only 16% of households had bought this coverage. In Kobe, the figure was as low as 5%. The premiums are though to be too expensive for the coverage. At the time of Kobe, there were caps on individual payouts so you could only get a maximum of 10 million yen for your building and 5 million for contents. These caps have now been raised to 50 million and 10 million respectively. Also, you can only get a 100% payout if your property is deemed to be a total loss. To be assessed as a total loss, you need to have lost more than 50% of the value of the structure of the building (beams, rooves, foundations etc) or more than 70% of your floor. If you've lost 20-50% of the value of the structure then you'll be a half loss and get a 50% payout. But if you have "only" lost up to 20% of the value of the structure or been flooded then you'll be a partial loss which entitles you to just a 5% payout.

There are different assesments for household goods but they follow the same pattern. One of the problems in Kobe is that insurance companies tried to speed things up by combining the assessments. This meant that people who had suffered major loss of goods received little or no money if their structure had seen only slight damage. This has since been changed so that assessments for structure and contents will be made independently.

Confusingly, there is also some earthquake fire coverage which isn't part of the JER scheme. It's sold automatically with a number of general insurance policies but it is limited to 5% of the coverage of the main policy and payouts are capped at 3 million which makes it irrelevant for just about everyone.

There is a lot more in the book Earthquake Insurance in Japan which is on the Non-Life Insurance Rating Organization website as a series of PDFs. As you might imagine, it is a pretty dry read but there is good data there. It is written by the insurance indusry, though, so don't expect too much critical analysis.

[Kuang_Grade]

My grandmother, and many other San Francisco natives who lived through the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake always referred to it as the Great Fire not the Great Earthquake because the fire seemed more destructive.

While the fire was certainly destructive (and not helped much by the army's dynamiting of numerous city blocks in attempts to create firebreaks), the city leaders also made a point of referring to the event after the fact as the Great Fire to down play the earthquake part...after all, who would want to invest/help rebuild a city destroyed by an earthquake given the US's surplus of space and overall yankee pragmatism. But great fires could happen anywhere and were seen as merely bad luck, not bad judgement on where to place a city.

Ta for the info, Mulboyne.

[kurohinge1]

At the risk of sending you into a coma, I know a little about the insurance side . . .

Whereas the insurance companies themselves only seem to know the part about taking your money . . .

[SIZE="3"]Japanese insurers fail to pay out[/SIZE]

JAPAN'S top non-life insurance companies face the prospect of administrative penalties after they disclosed that they had failed to pay about 262,000 claims worth about Y16.2 billion ($184 million).

The disclosure came after the Financial Services Agency ordered 26 non-life insurance companies in August to investigate whether there were any cases of non-payment, following revelations in 2005 that the 26 groups, including the top six companies, had failed to make payments on hundreds of thousands of claims.

At that time, the top six reported they had failed to pay benefits in 144,000 cases. But the latest internal investigation, which covers the period from April 2002 to June 2005, shows the total was almost double the original figure.

The situation highlights poor corporate governance in the non-life insurance sector at a time when policies are becoming so complex it is difficult for policy-holders themselves to keep track of what payments they are entitled to.

It also underscores the FSA's push to uncover unscrupulous behaviour in the financial sector as deregulation increasingly exposes inexperienced consumers to a wide variety of complex financial products.

In 2006, the FSA issued business suspension orders on Sompo Japan and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance after it determined that there was malicious intent in certain cases relating to non-payments.

Many of the latest non-payments relate to optional coverage in car insurance policies, such as condolence money or funds to rent a substitute vehicle.

The companies said the unpaid claims often resulted from their failure to check the full extent of payments policy holders were entitled to when they made claims.

Some of the six largest non-life insurance companies - Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance, Sompo Japan, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Aioi Insurance, Nipponkoa Insurance and Nissay Dowa General Insurance - could face penalties if the FSA decides that there had been serious negligence or malicious intent.

. . . Last November, the FSA issued business improvement orders on the 26 non-life insurance companies after it emerged that they had failed to make payments in 180,000 cases, totalling about Y8.4 billion in value . . . more

[Charles]

Whereas the insurance companies themselves only seem to know the part about taking your money . . .

[SIZE="3"]Japanese insurers fail to pay out[/SIZE]

You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Never-pay' policy, which, you know, if you never claim is very worthwhile...but you had to claim, and, well, there it is.

[kurohinge1]

You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Never-pay' policy, which, you know, if you never claim is very worthwhile...but you had to claim, and, well, there it is.

Actually, the story (& Charles' post) remind me of that Seinfeld scene where he went to pick a rental car he had booked . . .

. . .
[color="Blue"]Jerry: [/color]I don't understand. Do you have my reservation?
[color="red"]Rental Car Agent:[/color] We have your reservation, we just ran out of cars.
[color="Blue"]Jerry: [/color]But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.
[color="Red"]Rental Car Agent:[/color] I think I know why we have reservations.
[color="blue"]Jerry: [/color]I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to *take* the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.
. . .

[Mulboyne]

Bloomberg: Marsh & McLennan Ex-Brokers Form Online Japan Quake Insurer

Two former employees at Marsh & McLennan Cos., the world's largest insurance broker, are creating an online earthquake insurance company in Japan to tap rising retail demand for cover against a major disaster. Kentaro Tada, 35, president of the new firm Shinsai Partners, and Tetsuya Hattori, received approval from the Financial Services Agency to start selling insurance products from this month, Tada said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "Many people will need extra finance in the event of a critical quake as most casualty insurers only guarantee half of their asset values at most," Tada said. A three-person household paying about 20,000 yen ($171) a year in insurance premiums, for example, would only receive about 6 million yen if their home was destroyed in a quake. Shinsai aims to provide top-up insurance, available online, providing extra cover in the event of an earthquake...more...

[Buraku]

April 2003 the Japanese government ordered Tepco it to shut all of its nuclear reactors for safety checks after false safety documents were found, after the scandal was revealed, the company announced high level nuke resignations

You'd think the Japanese would have a better safety record with nuclear energy considering the historical connections with deaths of Hiroshima's people after the A-bomb was dropped, but it seems nuke scandals also can happen here.

could a big nuke accident happen in Japan ?


[yt]gpoVzAArUN0[/yt]
Will Onagawa, 鹿島町, Shika, Oarai, 美浜町, Tomari, Naka-Ibaraki, 敦賀市, KashiKari, Fukushima, 薩摩川内市, Tokai, Hamaoka, 高浜町, Monju, Ohi, 伊方町, Genkai

become a mirror image of an area near Chernobyl ?

[Buraku]

Rare oarfish believed to herald quakes

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/776761--rare-oarfish-believed-to-herald-quakes

Ancient fishing lore and modern marine biology are both unnerved by the number of rare oarfish that have been washing up along the Sea of Japan.



....something is still missing






....oh yeah

the dog

[aquamarine]

I got the warning (that same article that was also echoed on CBC) from the folks back home about five days ago. Since then I've been carrying some granola bars and an extra bottle of water with me wherever I go JUST in case.