national

Small tsunami waves reach Japan after Chile quake

33 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

The tsunami hitting Chile was only about 2.11 meters(6.9 ft) at its highest , the highest hitting Hawaii was less than 2 ft. (0.6 m), what were they expecting to hit Japan?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Last time it was >2h of live footage, people still walking by the beach (?) and nothing. I think Japan got its share already... Stay safe and away of beaches.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I understand the concern, but it's a biT dramatic considering how minor the impact of the wave was across the Pacific Ocean in Chile.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@ka_chan After the waves that hit on the 11th of march 3 years ago, I can understand nobody wants to take any risks.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

"Get out of the water and leave immediately."???? What kind of bureaucraticae is that?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Can we really call a wave of 20cm a tsunami? I've seen regular waves which are larger than that. I can understand that they want to be prepared, but agree with ka_chan, all their coverage and warnings seems a bit silly.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

It's prudent to be careful, but a 20 cm tsunami? How could they even tell.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Following the 3/11 earthquake many places dropped up to at least one meter putting them at sea level or below and with most of the sea defenses also destroyed even high tides are now causing flooding in some areas.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

zichiApr. 03, 2014 - 09:26AM JST

Following the 3/11 earthquake many places dropped up to at least one meter

Really?? a meter??

http://enenews.com/japan-officials-ground-subsidence-is-spreading-after-quake-concern-about-sinking-buildings-being-damaged-only-an-inch-can-jeopardize-stability-video

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I saw the Tsunami Watch this morning around 4 am for the entire East Coast of Japan to hit around 5:30 am. I thought to myself that everyone would definitely be sleeping at that time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/water/earthquake/overview.html

You can see an overview of the effects of the quake here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Some say it's was only a small tsunami but how do they know for sure without the coverage and warnings? Being prepared is silly? That is the kind of thinking that lead to so many deaths and damage. Better to be ready than be sorry.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Instruct Shinzo Abe to repent for Japan's past sins and war crimes. The next earthquake and tsunamis are coming for japan. This is the only way to avoid them and return the region to peace. Retribution that comes with nature are unavoidable. The same as what America has been facing the last few years from forest fires, droughts, ice, storms and landslides. retribution for their military interventions all over the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HimerosApr. 03, 2014 - 08:35AM JST

I understand the concern, but it's a biT dramatic considering how minor the impact of the wave was across the Pacific Ocean in Chile.

The tsunami caused by the 1960 Great Chilean Earthquake killed 142 people in Japan when it reached Japan 22 hours after the quake. The hight of the tsunami at Sanriku coast was 6.3m at the highest point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake#Tsunami

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Is anyone awake at JT? A second tsunami warning was just issued. Maybe a meter in Shizuoka, more in Hokkaido. Where are the updates? It is 1 PM in Japan. Seriously!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Can we really call a wave of 20cm a tsunami? I've seen regular waves which are larger than that. I can understand that they want to be prepared, but agree with ka_chan, all their coverage and warnings seems a bit silly.

It's different. It's actually very inaccurate to call a tsunami a wave, because it is really a sustained rise in the water level- even a 50cm tsunami can be quite noticeable in low lying areas, which you'll see if you look at footage of the Boxing Day tsunami hitting parts of Thailand- people and buildings were being swept away by a tsunami that was barely waist height, but still did a lot of damage. It wasn't 40cm waves that reached Iwate and other areas this time, it was like a 40cm rise in the tide lasting several minutes. Not a major concern this time I'll give you, but what if it had been 140cm?

Anyway, given Japan's history, what do we think is better, under preparation or over preparation? Can you imagine what the fallout would be like if they underestimated an approaching tsunami and people hadn't evacuated?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I understand that caution near the beach is required, and therefore a warning is required. This is because there is already a problem with rogue waves that sweep away those near the beach, and any rise in the sea level could add to the risk. That said, it would seem that making the cutoff just a bit higher before a warning is issued should be considered.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Can we really call a wave of 20cm a tsunami? I've seen regular waves which are larger than that. I can understand that they want to be prepared, but agree with ka_chan, all their coverage and warnings seems a bit silly

amidalism

Seriously you shud look up & learn what a tsunami REALLY is, hint it is NOT the same as a run of the mill 20cm wave!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Better to be safe than sorry, and quite frankly I'm glad they issue the reports. That said, they need to ensure that they do not create panic, as that is not safe either.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not to be flippant, but isn't a "small tsunami wave" just a wave?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

isn't a "small tsunami wave" just a wave?

No, it isn't.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/tsunami2.htm

10 ( +10 / -0 )

They just mentioned on the news that the last time there was a big earthquake in Chile in 2010, it caused a 120cm tsunami in the same areas, which went right up estuaries and made a mess of shellfish cultivation in the bays among other things.

I think warnings for a possible 1m tsunami or less are absolutely justified- it's an inexact science and the actual tsunami could easily be a metre higher than that. I personally would rather be warned if I lived near the coast, even if some of the other commenters would rather not know!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It seems people still think that a tsunami is just a 'wave' but it actually isn't. It is like an instant rise in sea level so even a 50cm tsunami can do damage because the extra volume of water is huge. Hence a 1-metre tsunami can do serious damage.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They were crying wolf on Japanese TV and they should not have. If there had bee a substantial tsunami in South America, then yes, of course they should have issue warnings. But there was not, they knew perfectly well that the tsunami reaching Japan would be insignificant. It is irresponsible to issue strong warnings without reason; this only means that people get de-sensitized.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

WilliB,

Better to be safe than sorry. I don't think it will ever be possible for people in Japan, especially Tohoku to be de-sensitized to tsunami. At least, not for a very long time.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I absolutely agree with slumdog. WilliB, you really think that people in Tohoku could be "de-sensitized" to the risk of a tsunami after what they've experienced? Not gonna happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

After all what happen in Chile in 2010, I'd say better safe than sorry, even though there is no scientific proof, I've noticed that there is a relation between what happens in Chile and Japan, usually it was the other way around, when Japan suffered some quake, Chile would too...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB is right. Sometimes it's wrong to say "better be safe than sorry" because it lulls people into a false and dangerous sense of security. There have been a few warnings on TV since 3/11 of tsunamis hitting and what have we seen on TV? Yes, unbelievably people sitting on the beach looking out to sea... but then who can blame them when you get reports like this, and that's exactly the point. Tsunami are not all going to kill you, just like a gust of wind isn't dangerous but a typhoon is. It would be patently ridiculous if we got equivalent weather warnings for 10mph winds as we do for typhoons, and the overblown media coverage today of something they knew was going to be an enormous anti-climax is what can lead to deadly complacency when a genuinely life-threatening event occurs.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Oikawa, I get what you mean, but as I was reading the chain of events for March 11 there were strong quakes before the 9.0 that you had, besides, since there is no exact science in predicting the quakes or their intensity, it's good to keep up with the exercise, I don't know the dynamics of a Tsunami (I've only dealt with earthquakes) but from what I've heard there are scales to say threatening or non threatening, In Chile It was necessary to evacuate people, because there is little preparation of the people with tsunamis, in the exercise, they did so in an orderly fashion and without panic, making the people react more accordingly to the emergency, whereas in Japan it seems reasonable to call for caution...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At quake in you backyard as the March 11th one, you don't have time to see how big the wave is going to be since you have minutes to get to high ground. Same for Chili, from the results you probably didn't have to evacuate so many but since you have no way to predict the height of the tsunami, it's better to take the same side. But for Japan, they had 1/2 a day too see what would hit. When Hawaii only got less then a 2 m tsunami, how large could be in Japan. If you panic the people with false alerts, they will become desensitized and the alert will become less effective. Panic if there is a large quake in Kamchatka or off Kanto since there will not be much time to figure out the size. But for something that happened half a world away... BTW, if there are large harmonic quakes south of Kyushu, well.....

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

At quake in you backyard as the March 11th one, you don't have time to see how big the wave is going to be since you have minutes to get to high ground. Same for Chili, from the results you probably didn't have to evacuate so many but since you have no way to predict the height of the tsunami, it's better to take the same side. But for Japan, they had 1/2 a day too see what would hit. When Hawaii only got less then a 2 m tsunami, how large could be in Japan. If you panic the people with false alerts, they will become desensitized and the alert will become less effective. Panic if there is a large quake in Kamchatka or off Kanto since there will not be much time to figure out the size. But for something that happened half a world away... BTW, if there are large harmonic quakes south of Kyushu, well.....

There are many who have suggested to look up the difference between a regular ocean tidal wave and tsunami.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyHZHjOZZI

In short, even a 50 cm tsunami will lift cars and ocean containers.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It should be simple enough for anyone to understand. Imagine the forces involved, not the height of the wave, it's the length that should concern you. The water just keeps coming, when there's obstacles, the force drives the water over it and/or the obstacle, if not secured, gets carried away.

It's earthquakes that can destroy large buildings that cause tsunami. Comparing them with normal waves is silly.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It has been clearly stated by leading american nuclear experts who tested the region after the earthquake that there IS NO danger, and no lasting effects and people should be allowed to move back. the rumor mongering and fear mongering is sad to see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites