GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 The way I see it is that EVERYBODY has it wrong... It's a work in progress and it won't be known for days yet what the actual level of catastrophy the Fukushima nuclear plant produced/produces... One can't go by what one sees from Japan either... The Japanese are the most stoic and resilient population in the world as evidenced by taking this tremendous triple hit of an 8.9 Earthquake, a 30 METER high Tsunami and a multiple nuclear reactor incident, the level of which is still to be determined... Had all this happened, say on the west coast of the US, the world as we know it would technically cease to exist... In Japan it is simply something more that that amazing nation has to overcome, and I can assure you, they will... It was a 3 meter high wave .. not 30. Quote
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 It was a 3 meter high wave .. not 30. Can't be, Japan's sea walls are 12 meters high and they were easily "topped" as everyone saw... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 The way I see it is that EVERYBODY has it wrong... It's a work in progress and it won't be known for days yet what the actual level of catastrophy the Fukushima nuclear plant produced/produces... But that's the point...the power plant employees and others are still aggressively fighting the problem and have not lost the battle. They have not capitulated. This is Japan's finest hour! Had all this happened, say on the west coast of the US, the world as we know it would technically cease to exist... Why? This doesn't make any sense. In Japan it is simply something more that that amazing nation has to overcome, and I can assure you, they will... Uh huh..already told you that many posts ago. Welcome to the club. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Can't be, Japan's sea walls are 12 meters high and they were easily "topped" as everyone saw... 30 meters is about 90 feet. (3 feet per meter) and the Tsunami was reported at 8 feet, which is about 3 meters. If the Tsunami was 90 feet high, there would have been a lot more damage and the waves would have pushed farther inland. It reached about 10kms as it was. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Posted March 18, 2011 Its a crammed utilitarian population stuck on the top of a volcano....any cilization that has a representative that is supposed to be god in the flesh is not one that is going to fair well. People do not realize - that the amount of junk - debris is vast - there really is no place to put it other than dumping it in the ocean - but I guess they will BP did it and got away from it - so will Japan. The amount of chemical and human toxins released into the ocean not to mention radio active poison is astounding....Japan represents all that the world should not become...robot land with robot people....singing Elvis tunes. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) ....The amount of chemical and human toxins released into the ocean not to mention radio active poison is astounding....Japan represents all that the world should not become...robot land with robot people....singing Elvis tunes. This is rich...guess where a lot of the "radio active poison" came from. Edited March 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 30 meters is about 90 feet. (3 feet per meter) and the Tsunami was reported at 8 feet, which is about 3 meters. If the Tsunami was 90 feet high, there would have been a lot more damage and the waves would have pushed farther inland. It reached about 10kms as it was. - Based in part on such precedents, villagers felt safe building homes behind the village’s stout seawall, which residents say was indeed high and strong enough to hold back the first wave of Friday’s tsunami. However, the waters soon returned, pouring over both the sea wall and the monuments. Such was the force of the flow that a heavy stone marker to the 1933 disaster was knocked down and dragged away. Around the region some defences – including the Yoshihama sea wall and a barrier built at the mouth of the bay on which Ofunato port is built – failed completely in the face of such fury. Others, such as Ofunato’s final seawall, were simply overwhelmed. “We have never expected such a big tsunami,” says Mr Toda. “I think no one expected such a big one.” - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/12dc0ec0-50bf-11e0-9227-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Gxmay7mq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis I'm being VERY conservative when I state 30 meters, it may have been considerably higher to have reached 10 km inland over such a wide spread... - Especially hard hit was the coastal village of Taro (now part of Miyako city) in Iwate Prefecture, which lost 42% of its total population and 98% of its buildings. Taro is now protected by an enormous tsunami wall, currently 10 meters in height and over 2 kilometers long. The original wall, constructed in 1958, saved Taro from yet another destruction from the 1960 Chilean tsunami (see below). - Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 - Based in part on such precedents, villagers felt safe building homes behind the village’s stout seawall, which residents say was indeed high and strong enough to hold back the first wave of Friday’s tsunami. However, the waters soon returned, pouring over both the sea wall and the monuments. Such was the force of the flow that a heavy stone marker to the 1933 disaster was knocked down and dragged away. Around the region some defences – including the Yoshihama sea wall and a barrier built at the mouth of the bay on which Ofunato port is built – failed completely in the face of such fury. Others, such as Ofunato’s final seawall, were simply overwhelmed. “We have never expected such a big tsunami,” says Mr Toda. “I think no one expected such a big one.” - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/12dc0ec0-50bf-11e0-9227-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Gxmay7mq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis I'm being VERY conservative when I state 30 meters, it may have been considerably higher to have reached 10 km inland over such a wide spread... - Especially hard hit was the coastal village of Taro (now part of Miyako city) in Iwate Prefecture, which lost 42% of its total population and 98% of its buildings. Taro is now protected by an enormous tsunami wall, currently 10 meters in height and over 2 kilometers long. The original wall, constructed in 1958, saved Taro from yet another destruction from the 1960 Chilean tsunami (see below). - The tsunami in Indonesia was about 30 meters high. And the quake was a 9.1 or a 9.2 ..... You would have seen much wider devastation to Japan if the wall of water was 90 feet high. If you check the videos again, you can see that they were not 90 feet high. If you have wall of water 8-10 feet high, there is a lot of water that is being pushed along with it. If it was 90 feet high, most of the places that were considered high ground would have been overwhelmed with the water as well. Some of the footage we see are from people just above some of the houses in safer areas and the water did get up to the roof lines of most smaller buildings. At 90 feet high, you would have seen some of those shoreline apartment buildings washed away as well, or severely damaged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami But I'll throw this out to you. If the initial reports of the tsunami were wrong and you are correct, how wrong are the reports of the nuclear plant crisis? Everything is being under reported? Quote
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) The tsunami in Indonesia was about 30 meters high. And the quake was a 9.1 or a 9.2 ..... You would have seen much wider devastation to Japan if the wall of water was 90 feet high. If you check the videos again, you can see that they were not 90 feet high. If you have wall of water 8-10 feet high, there is a lot of water that is being pushed along with it. If it was 90 feet high, most of the places that were considered high ground would have been overwhelmed with the water as well. Some of the footage we see are from people just above some of the houses in safer areas and the water did get up to the roof lines of most smaller buildings. At 90 feet high, you would have seen some of those shoreline apartment buildings washed away as well, or severely damaged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami But I'll throw this out to you. If the initial reports of the tsunami were wrong and you are correct, how wrong are the reports of the nuclear plant crisis? Everything is being under reported? - 1993: Okushiri, Hokkaido, Japan A devastating tsunami wave occurred along the coasts of Hokkaidō in Japan as a result of a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, 80 miles (130 km) offshore, on July 12, 1993. The highest wave of the tsunami was a staggering 31 meters (102 ft) high. - I think you're forgetting that the water we've seen is only the water coming OVER 10-12 meter high sea walls and some of the most sophisticated tsunami protections anywhere in the world where-as the Indonesia tsunami had no such barriers to overcome and much lower terrain to flow over... I saw one picture of the oncoming wave with it still out to sea and it was staggering... PLUS it's a whole series of waves not one wave... Have a look at that picture > http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8449736-biggest-tsunami-in-history/video/74995693-best-footage-tsunami-japan-earthquake Edited March 18, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Don't confuse wave height (amplitude) with tidal bore (surge) and volume. You don't need a 30 meter wave to do significant inland damage. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Don't confuse wave height (amplitude) with tidal bore (surge) and volume. You don't need a 30 meter wave to do significant inland damage. I know that, the Tsunami that hit Japan this time was enormous by any standards you want to apply... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I think there is confusion here some of it caused by american news networks use of feet and international use of meters... 30 meters is unlikely......it's also dependent on the sea bottom some shorelines will have higher waves than in other spots...it's not so much the height of the wave as the length, a 3 meter high wave may have a half a kilometer of water behind it at the same height not the typical short rolling wave you normally see at the beach, as it piles up against a sea wall or crowds into a narrowing valley it will grow in height... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I know that, the Tsunami that hit Japan this time was enormous by any standards you want to apply... True, but BC is correct here. 10 foot waves come in, which the surge ends up pushing inland. The amount of water behind that 8 foot wave is the key part here. You can have a high wave, with little surge, and little damage. You can have a small wave, with a huge surge, and you will see wide struck damage, as we saw with Japan. Normally you have just the wind pushing waves upon shore, which are much larger than 10 feet in many areas of the world, but never reach that far up the beach, because there is no surge of water behind it. Crack the ocean floor and shift a good portion of the ocean, and that water is going to dramatically increase the damage potential of even a small wave. Quote
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 True, but BC is correct here. 10 foot waves come in, which the surge ends up pushing inland. The amount of water behind that 8 foot wave is the key part here. You can have a high wave, with little surge, and little damage. You can have a small wave, with a huge surge, and you will see wide struck damage, as we saw with Japan. Normally you have just the wind pushing waves upon shore, which are much larger than 10 feet in many areas of the world, but never reach that far up the beach, because there is no surge of water behind it. Crack the ocean floor and shift a good portion of the ocean, and that water is going to dramatically increase the damage potential of even a small wave. some videos I saw I would estimate a 10 meter high wave came ashore, in other video's from a different location closer to 3 meters...I haven't seen any videos of something of 30 meters high...a 10 meter wave a half kilometer long is a real monster... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I think there is confusion here some of it caused by american news networks use of feet and international use of meters... Really? Who here would ever watch "american news networks"? LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 The tsunami in Indonesia was about 30 meters high. And the quake was a 9.1 or a 9.2 ..... doubtful, the videos of the tsunami in Indonesia were 2-3 meters high, videos taken from 2nd story windows and roofs 3-5 meters above the ground...30 meters and we're talking about the height of a ten story building... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GWiz Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 True, but BC is correct here. 10 foot waves come in, which the surge ends up pushing inland. The amount of water behind that 8 foot wave is the key part here. You can have a high wave, with little surge, and little damage. You can have a small wave, with a huge surge, and you will see wide struck damage, as we saw with Japan. Normally you have just the wind pushing waves upon shore, which are much larger than 10 feet in many areas of the world, but never reach that far up the beach, because there is no surge of water behind it. Crack the ocean floor and shift a good portion of the ocean, and that water is going to dramatically increase the damage potential of even a small wave. I repeat > I know that, the Tsunami that hit Japan this time was enormous by any standards you want to apply... Look at the pictures, play the videos > http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8449736-biggest-tsunami-in-history/video/74995693-best-footage-tsunami-japan-earthquake Nuff said Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) I repeat > I know that, the Tsunami that hit Japan this time was enormous by any standards you want to apply... Look at the pictures, play the videos > http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8449736-biggest-tsunami-in-history/video/74995693-best-footage-tsunami-japan-earthquake Nuff said first video waves are about 3 meters, more than enough to move or destroy a 2 story home or building...if it were 30 meters the person taking the video wouldn't have survived... Edited March 18, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 doubtful, the videos of the tsunami in Indonesia were 2-3 meters high, videos taken from 2nd story windows and roofs 3-5 meters above the ground...30 meters and we're talking about the height of a ten story building... I agree with that as well, some of the videos we saw, the waves were huge, but not 30 meters. 30 feet for sure. Quote
Wilber Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 This tsunami was estimated at 10 meters but that would have been the mean height. Due to channeling it was estimated at over 15 meters in some locations. Tsunamis have very long wave lengths and are usually only about a foot high in the open ocean and don't build height until they start to shoal. Like any wave, their ultimate height will vary with the characteristics of the shore line they are striking. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I agree with that as well, some of the videos we saw, the waves were huge, but not 30 meters. 30 feet for sure.a lot of confusion comes from older canadians still thinking in feet rather than meters and confused american sources like Faux news that don't know the difference between a meter and a foot... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 a lot of confusion comes from older canadians still thinking in feet rather than meters and confused american sources like Faux news that don't know the difference between a meter and a foot... Yea...those stupid Americans! So why are Canadians watching "american sources"? How many Canadians know their height or weight in metric units? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
wyly Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 amazing video I saw today...a survivor was driving along the coast and he videoed the wave as it came over the sea wall and road...his car lifted up and he floated away with the wave! what are the odds of surviving that ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Nuclear-plant-chief-weeps-Japanese-finally-admit-radiation-leak-kill-people.html The boss of the company behind the devastated Japanese nuclear reactor today broke down in tears - as his country finally acknowledged the radiation spewing from the over-heating reactors and fuel rods was enough to kill some citizensJapan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency admitted that the disaster was a level 5, which is classified as a crisis causing 'several radiation deaths' by the UN International Atomic Energy. Officials said the rating was raised after they realised the full extent of the radiation leaking from the plant. They also said that 3 per cent of the fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima plant had been severely damaged, suggesting those reactor cores have partially melted down. After Tokyo Electric Power Company Managing Director Akio Komiri cried as he left a conference to brief journalists on the situation at Fukushima, a senior Japanese minister also admitted that the country was overwhelmed by the scale of the tsunami and nuclear crisis. He said officials should have admitted earlier how serious the radiation leaks were. Something I've been saying from the start. Underestimated and under reported. Watch for the likes of CBC, CNN FOX et al, start reporting this in a couple more days. Quote
bud Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 amazing video I saw today...a survivor was driving along the coast and he videoed the wave as it came over the sea wall and road...his car lifted up and he floated away with the wave! what are the odds of surviving that ... link? Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.