What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Tsunami warnings issued for Pacific rim

  • #21
It's hardly unscientific either really.... The moon being at its peak potential for gravitational influence could easily influence seismic activity, it would only be a fool who would say otherwise.

Whether or not the Supermoon theory will be as catastrophic as the loonies are saying will have to remain to be seen. But the fact is that the moon will be exceptionally close and potent in the upcoming days and weeks and that the entire Ring of Fire should take heed of that. Japan is in a highly volatile region, but an 8.9 quake corresponding with the moon's activities seems pretty obviously connected to me.

It was strange we got a Tsunami warning on the radio, kind of eerie! But I live on the Inside Passage, so I am more or less safe from Tsunamis.

My heart goes out to Japan and I say good luck to all those on the Pacific outer coast!
 
  • #22
I was making light of the fact that the "loonies" were not basing thier predictions on scientific principles.

I would think there may be some merit to increased seismic activity. Increased stress to the earth's crust due to a closer than normal moon could very well accelerate a shift in the earth's crust. Something that would have probably occured anyways over time, but sped up due to the moon being closer to the earth perhaps.

But then again, I am talking about things I have absolutely no clue about and don't pretend to.
 
  • #23
Moon = gravitational influences = seismic activity

Those seem like some pretty fundamental scientific principles. ???
 
  • #24
Moon = gravitational influences = seismic activity

Those seem like some pretty fundamental scientific principles. ???

except it doesnt make that much of a difference, there is a fraction of a percent increase in seismic activity at high tides.......
 
  • #25
"The tide comes in, the tide goes out - never a miscommunication." :-)) Sorry I couldn't help myself.

But rattler, on March 19th the moon is going to be the closest it has been in 20 years. That's the difference that people are murmuring about. It's not just a high tide, or full moon. It's the Lunar Perigree conjoined with a full moon as well as being very close to the equinox. On top of that there has been some hefty Sun activity, with a couple sizeable flares being shot out recently. The sun's activity is more or less unrelated, I think.

Scientists do hesitate to say that the moon's qualities will affect any sort of natural disasters that might occur, but this quake was huge... and the Indonesian quake in 2005 correlated with a potent moon as well.
 
  • #26
The pressure you put on a gas pedal hardly compares to the force of a moving vehicle, but that's what triggers a car to move. With the right equilibria, it only takes a tiny perturbance to cause massive upheavals. It might not be likely, but it's totally plausible.
~Joe
 
  • #27
That being said, it's also not provable and there is very little evidence suggesting the powerful moons cause natural disasters. But as a superstitious being who looks at the sky and is afraid of Earthquakes I am certainly ready to run outside or hide under my desk.

If there were ever an earthquake of any significant magnitude where I am, the whole place would be in ruins! The buildings here are all on stilts and hillsides or even on top of the ocean.
 
  • #28
actually as i said above it does affect it a measurable amount......its just not a big enough to matter.....if the Supermoon triples the activity its still only a three percent increase over normal......would be enough to be noticed by those that are studying the world as a whole to see when they crunch the numbers but not enough for the average person to notice......the Ring of Fire aint gonna go ape**** just cause the moons pull is a lil stronger.....
 
  • #29
I think you might be making a bit of a false dichotomy there - nobody is saying that it's going to make seismic activity go crazy. Just that it could precipitate some relatively unusual events. Sometimes all that is needed is a little extra nudge.
~Joe
 
  • #30
Now it seems one of thier nuclear power plants is having cooling issues. Man I sure hope they can get that under control. That would be horrific if there were a Chernobyl type event on that tiny island.

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Correction. 2 power plants! Oh my!
 
  • #31
Ugh, so it's true after all. It was mentioned briefly at the top of a news story I read but they gave no other details. I was hoping they were just being sensationalist.
~Joe
 
  • #32
I sure hope it's is a case of yellow journalism.
 
  • #34
Good article. That's the kind of info I was searching for. Sort of puts my questions to rest.
 
  • #35
I don't quite follow the logic there - it feels like hand-waving to me. While the moon wasn't at perigee during the quake, the perigee has been getting closer and closer with each cycle recently. I don't really think we understand enough about the way that the gravity of nearby massive bodies influences plate tectonics and flows in the Earth's mantle to make a particularly definitive call about this. I think the urge to tune out astrological pseudo-science is leading more empirical types to jump the gun with blanket statements like, "there is no way this earthquake was caused by the moon."
If someone was asserting that a magnitude 8.9 quake could not happen without the presence of a supermoon, I could understand dismissing that offhand. And certainly, some people seem to be "blaming" the moon and giving it way too much credit. But there's a very big difference between saying that the moon caused the quake and saying that it contributed to it. Show me a mathematical model where the quake occurs with identical profiles both with and without a supermoon and then we'll talk. We don't have such a clear understanding of the dynamics at work here; I'm skeptical that we even have the means to compute them right now, or sufficient data to define the initial conditions.
~Joe
 
  • #36
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/meltdown-fear-after-nuclear-plant-blast-20110312-1bsf4.html
Published on Saturday, March 12, 2011 by the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (excerpt)
Huge Blast at Japan Nuclear Power Plant

TOKYO -- A nuclear reactor damaged by Japan's biggest earthquake may be starting to melt down, local nuclear authorities have warned.

Smoke rises from Fukushima Daiichi 1 nuclear reactor after an explosion March 12, 2011 in this still image from video footage via Reuters TV There was a large explosion inside a concrete reactor building at the Fukushima No. 1 power station about 220 kilometres north of Tokyo after the reactor's cooling system failed.

Smoke was seen billowing from the plant last night, four people were injured and radioactivity had risen 20-fold.

The explosion destroyed the walls of the reactor building.

But serious damage to the container of the reactor is believed to be unlikely, Kyodo News reported, citing unidentified nuclear safety agency officials.

Fuel rods at the reactor may be melting after radioactive cesium material left by atomic fission was detected near the site, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency spokesman Yuji Kakizaki said by phone.

''If the fuel rods are melting and this continues, a reactor meltdown is possible,'' Kakizaki said.

A meltdown refers to a heat build-up of such intensity in the core it melts the floor of the reactor containment housing.

A Japanese cabinet minister confirmed radiation was leaking from the plant and there were reports that the cooling system to a second reactor had also failed. Earlier, the Japanese government ordered a 10-kilometre exclusion zone around the site. Traffic piled up as the government scrambled to evacuate more than 45,000 residents.


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/radiation-down-at-japan-nuke-plant-20110313-1bsg9.html

Radiation down at Japan nuke plant

Yuri Kageyama
March 13, 2011 - 12:39AM

AP (excerpt)

Japan's government says the metal container sheltering a nuclear reactor was not affected by an explosion that destroyed the building it's in.

Government spokesman Yukio Edano says the radiation around the plant did not rise after the blast, but instead is decreasing. He added that pressure in the reactor is also decreasing.
 
  • #37
That's horrible. I hope everyone within windfall heeded the evacuation warnings. I would suspect things may be worse than what they are telling the media in an effort to prevent panic. I sure hope I am wrong though.
 
  • #39
o_O
Why don't we have an international task force for this kind of thing? With nuclear energy becoming a more and more popular option, it seems that something like this could happen at any time. I know Japan has rescue operations to be thinking of, but if I were in charge I'd be air-freighting whatever personnel and equipment was needed to cool that pile, without a moment's hesitation. A meltdown isn't just Japan's problem - it would be bad for the whole world. Isn't this one of the reasons we have the UN?
~Joe
 
Back
Top