pongo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 is it 8.9 on the old richter scale or have they measured it on the new scale ? That's interesting. The Guardian addresses the question here 9.36am: A quick note from my colleague James Randerson on the "Richter Scale" – the logarithmic magnitude scale that was defined in 1935 to measure earthquakes in California. It was developed by CharlesRichter (who also happened to be a nudist) and Beno Gutenberg of the California Institute of Technology (CIT) and was originally referred to as "Local Magnitude" or ML, James writes: Even though it was superseded in 1979 by the more uniformly applicable moment magnitude (Mw) scale the Richter scale has an amazing staying power in the public, and it has to be said journalistic, mind. In the barrage of information about the Japan earthquake numerous articles have used to the old scale incorrectly (including on occasion ours). Scientists no longer use Richter's original methodology as it does not work for large quakes or ones where the epicentre is greater than 600km away. Science writer Ted Nield explains in this amusing piece from 2007 on the scale's staying power: New magnitude scales that extended Richter and Gutenberg's original idea were developed as the number of recording stations worldwide increased. These include body-wave magnitude (Mb) and surface wave magnitude (Ms). Each is valid over a particular range of frequency and type of signal, and within its own parameters is equivalent to "Richter" magnitude. But because of the limitations of all three (especially the tendency to become saturated at high magnitudes, so that very large events cannot be easily distinguished) a more uniformly applicable magnitude scale, known as moment magnitude (Mw), was developed in 1979 by two other CIT scientists, Tom Hanks and Hiroo Kanamori. For very large earthquakes, Mw gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size, and this is the measure that is always misreported as "the Richter Scale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Human nature means that we will build houses in the best/easiest places to build. In Japans case they built in the fertile flat lands below the mountains, and why not? This is a once in a millenium event and it is hard to get your head around the loss of life and infrastructure. In no way can we Judge their choice of areas to populate. We have had mini quakes on the island, does that mean we should all be building houses on Snafell? No so dont condem the Japanese, they need our support ATM nothing else 1 - I haven't condemned anybody 2 - This wasn't a once in a millenium event - it was predictable, and has precendence. They'd been expecting the "big one" for years. 3 - Even if a tsunami like that hit the island it wouldn't reach Onchan, so stop talking nonsense about building on Snaefell. Higher ground doesn't mean mountains. I can understand why such areas might be populated, but not why they'd build nuclear power stations there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 If they were not near the sea they would not now be able to try to use sea water to cool them. And if nuclear power stations were not built near the sea - where else would they be able to leak their hazardous waste ? The experts on TV remind me of the Parnell character in Repo Man. I hear their bearded assurances in his voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than they were designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 you know its getting bad when japan have asked the atomic energy for help. There not ones for asking for help over things like this. There still hideing things, once again they say radation lvls are low and of no harm, but a us ship which was 100 miles away registed radation that gave the men aboard a months dose of radation in an hour, reactor 2 has lost cooling and all water, next 24 hours it will be boom or sorted overhead of ractor 1 and 2 after explosion And for who ever said all was fine, Hirokawa said measurements taken near the high school at Futaba were higher than when he had taken measurements approximately 200 meters from unit 4 at Chernobyl shortly after that explosion.He added: "At the front of the Futaba Town Hall, all our three radiation monitors went off scale and became inoperable (we could not take measurements). At the entrance of the hospital, stretchers were turned over, many things were scattered, a feeling that evacuation had been undertaken in a very rushed way." inspires conferdance that dont it, when there saying radaiton lvls are fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Co-incidentally I've got around 300 accident damaged Nissan Micra's to get rid of. Anyone interested please give me a shout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Co-incidentally I've got around 300 accident damaged Nissan Micra's to get rid of. Anyone interested please give me a shout. i give you £10 a car breached has been found in reactor no3, the contaiment has failed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 People were saying not so long ago, about how safe nuclear reactors are...... My link On 18 October 2010 the British government announced that Heysham was one of the eight sites it considered suitable for future nuclear power stations. How safe is safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 People were saying not so long ago, about how safe nuclear reactors are...... My link On 18 October 2010 the British government announced that Heysham was one of the eight sites it considered suitable for future nuclear power stations. How safe is safe? well on a major fault line and a place that has tsunami, then i dont think they were vary safe, but i dont think they had any other choice to be honest. and from the desgins and reports, this plants holds its spent fuel rods in the roof of the reactors!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 no 2 reactor just gone bang, no reports what exploded. radation at 10000 times the safe lvls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 radation at 10000 times the safe lvls Where are you getting your figures? - no other sites or people are quoting figures like this that I can find. Got any links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 NHK World News have just apologised to viewers for bringing them news which could cause concern - ever polite the Japanese. News on there seems pretty up to date, but those being interviewde looking pretty shifty when asked direct questions about radiation levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 radation at 10000 times the safe lvls Where are you getting your figures? - no other sites or people are quoting figures like this that I can find. Got any links? NHK have reported that according to William Gibson (GreatDismal) retweeting Joi on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 NHK World News have just apologised to viewers for bringing them news which could cause concern - ever polite the Japanese. News on there seems pretty up to date, but those being interviewde looking pretty shifty when asked direct questions about radiation levels. i seen thay stopped the the press talk when Asked how they could flood it if it is leaking, then they stopped the conference. im sure we know in time whats happined, but the pressure went down inside the reactor, while radation went up outside the plant, fuel roads are over half exposed. 2.7mts out of water. and can not stableize the water lvls, i think no2 reactor is lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 radation at 10000 times the safe lvls Where are you getting your figures? - no other sites or people are quoting figures like this that I can find. Got any links? was reported on NHK. something like 8,217 micro sievert per hour, 3 times the amount a person would get in a year when the normal does is like 22 micro sievert per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.