Jump to content

Some perspective on Japanese earthquake...


onyx1
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. :)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...