Japan Today
national

Minor tsunami hits Iwate coast after M6.9 quake

41 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

No to nuclear power.

5 ( +18 / -13 )

Your workable alternative?

-5 ( +18 / -23 )

4 years without it, doing fine. x

11 ( +19 / -8 )

@YongYang Too true. The government keeps pushing for NUKE power yet we seem to be doing fine without it. I think it's time Japan invested in some hydro dams.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

Why? Have you been living a dark, cold, electricity free existence for the last four years while the Japanese economy recently came out of recession? How silly of you, just flip the main switch in your fuse box and power up, plenty of juice to use. Mega quakes, tsunami and nuclear idiocy do not mix.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

UK9393

Why? Have you been living a dark, cold, electricity free existence for the last four years while the Japanese economy recently came out of recession?

Just came out of a recession. May dip back in.

How silly of you, just flip the main switch in your fuse box and power up, plenty of juice to use. Mega quakes, tsunami and nuclear idiocy do not mix.

And Onagawa NPP's still doing fine.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Workable alternative? Portland Oregon has begun harvesting energy from it's drinking water supply. http://www.lucidenergy.com This seems like a brilliant plan because it can be plugged into an existing network. It takes gravity to work however and it currently doesn't generate as much power as coal or oil. Every little bit counts and this doesn't create the problem of an ugly tower in someone's back yard. Since the 3/11 tsunami hasn't Japan relied upon fossil fuels for energy? Green energy will take a while to catch up.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Predictable irrelevant media nuclear reference in report on an earthquake, predictable irrelevant dog whistle anti-nuke responses in comments. This fraud long ago became beyond a farce.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Predictable irrelevant media nuclear reference in report on an earthquake, predictable irrelevant dog whistle anti-nuke responses in comments. This fraud long ago became beyond a farce.

Guy - Funny. I don't remember any comments from you in March, 2011.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

is 1 meter a tsunami? surely just a little wave.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

There was no damage to any of nuclear reactors in the region as they have been off-line since 2011, NHK said.

Online or offline makes no difference to the danger. They are still active and can still meltdown if there is another cooling failure like in Fukushima. How many accidents and warnings does the Jaoanese government need to make them realise that, building and marital infidelity over 50 nuclear reactors on one of the world's most earthquake prove string of islands is just absolutely ludicrous?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The government keeps pushing for NUKE power yet we seem to be doing fine without it.

Yeah, except for the spike in carbon emissions and all the associated respiratory illnesses associated with fossil fuel based power generation.

Oh, and the high costs of importing all that fossil fuel.

Other than that, GREAT idea to get rid of nuclear power.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

@Wakarimasen

The height is but one part of the equation though, and in a way a not very important one. You could have a 30 metre high tsunami and so long as it was just a wave as we see at the beach and had no discernible length to it then it would be fine. It's really about the sheer volume of water. A 1 metre tsunami would still have a certain amount of force behind it, and you don't know when that 1 metre high barrel of water coming towards is going to stop. Imagine being pummelled by a metre high wall of water for half an hour, and the volume of water that would still remain after it had stopped. Even a metre high tsunami could easily drown children and the weak, and a small miscalculation and it in fact be a 2 metre high tsunami and almost everybody would be under the wave height and could be drowned, not to mention the power of the wave, which could be sweeping you along, banging you into debris and pulling you under the surface.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

WakarimasenFEB. 17, 2015 - 09:58AM JST is 1 meter a tsunami? surely just a little wave.

2 totally different types of waves. A Tsunami occurs as a result of the movement of a high volume of water from the seabed to the sea surface. While your typical wave is generated by the wind.

Countries in the pacific area suffered damage from tsunami waves that measured between 0.5M -1M in height after the 2011 earthquake.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

It is not really a big deal to some degree. However, the government needs to make higher walls or levies around the coast just be safe.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

is 1 meter a tsunami? surely just a little wave

WOW! You would think after 3/11 that those who DONT know what a tsunami is would at least look up some info!!

Hint if you try to stand in front of a 1M high tsunami YOU & whole lot more are going to LOSE!

Do yourself a favor & look up the difference between normal waves & tsunami, the later packs a massive long lasting impact

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Just out of curiosity, why doesn't JT have a banner alert for Tsunami warnings?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Let's just hope this one isn't just a precursor to another big one like 3/11 was.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Thanks to all for the tsunami lessons. So wave height is not the significant determinant but rather wave length?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Does turning off a nuclear plant even do anything? Surely you can't simply turn nuclear fuel rods off right? Especially considering that they're saying that it'll take half a century to fully decommission Fukushima..

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Dcog; Seriously? You have most advanced form of readily accessible data at your finger tips and you are asking that questions in a serious manner?

Put 'How do nuclear reactors work' in your browser's search engine and enjoy the journey.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Btw, you got any data to show for a rise in respiratory illnesses here since 2011 due to the energy policy?

The link between burning fossil fuels and respiratory illness is extremely well established - hundreds of papers in mainstream journals on the topic.

The science is the same no matter where it is applied.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Wakarimasen:

" Thanks to all for the tsunami lessons. So wave height is not the significant determinant but rather wave length? "

Tsuini wakarimashita kana?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

WOW another big quake just hit around 13:45!!

Mother nature is trying to tell the J-govt something they should listen!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Another one, 5+... hope nothing bigger is on the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@himajin et al, 'hope' 'pray' 'wish' etc... none of these human sentiments will prevent the larger movements that WILL happen between the tectonic plates on this planet, none. What we term earthquakes WILL happen on differing scales of intensity as long as this planet is active. Pre shocks are an established part of our limited understanding of the phenomena, if you especially live on a or near plate boundary, though not exclusively, you need, must, have to realise earthquakes are, will and do happen.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

YongYang

Agreed, BUT doesn't mean Japan should maintain nuke plants in such places with KNOWN seismic activity, we have seen the result with Fukushima & just imagine how much worse if the wind directions had blown more to the south west.

Clearly nuke plants are much too big a risk for Japan, but the boneheads who run this place are content to continue to roll the dice, next time is bound to be worse!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The aftershock sequence of 3.11 is expected to be as long as 10 years, so no surprises.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"I.don't think nuclear power and earthquake risk are irrelevant to the Fukushima evacuees"

The cause of the Dai-Ichi accident had nothing to do with earthquake risk, no matter how hard and often the media and anti-nuke, pro-FF crowd tries to push that myth. It was caused by an insane, and possibly criminal, refusal to prepare for a tsunami in the Pacific ocean, in clear violation of IAEA international safety standards. Which makes talk of nuclear power plants every single time there is an earthquake very irrelevant. And as earthquake and tsunami risks when living in Japan are infinitely greater than the risk of radiation and nuclear accidents (unless you can't understand the difference between 18,000 and zero), it would be nice to able to check the information when a quake happens without having to wade through all the gratuitous Fukushima references and radiophobe babble.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Didn't feel the first one while walking to the office this morning. However, I did feel the second one this afternoon and it was one of the strongest quakes I have felt in the Iwate area in the past couple of years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And with the population forecast to decrease by 25% over the next 35 years, there's another reason Japan can do without nuclear power, even if it is cheaper (assuming no more reactors get affected by earthquakes and/or tsunami over the next few hundred years......but that's a big assumption to make).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@himajin et al, 'hope' 'pray' 'wish' etc... none of these human sentiments will prevent the larger movements that WILL happen between the tectonic plates on this planet, none.

Why yes, after 30+ years I know that :-) Nothing wrong with hope, though.

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