Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Lack of widespread looting or civil unrest

Notably absent in this 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami is the looting or civil unrest which occurred in the immediate aftermath of several recent natural disasters of the similar scale, such as 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, and 2005 Katrina hurricane/flooding in New Orleans. I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.38.71 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Two quotes added, but I don't know where to put them or how to title them. I bet someone else can fix this. Thanks for your thoughts, 70.244.38.71. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Might depend on your definition of 'looting'. On the scene Aussie TV reports showed people(presumably survivors) gathering cans and small 'kegs' of beer at one place and packets(cans?) of food at another. This is not 'looting' as per stealing electrical goods, jewelry, money or other valuables non-essential for survival which drink and food certainly are, and these were some of the worst hit areas. I believe that theft is looked on with far more disdain In Japan than in the 'west'. Japanese would simply be far less likely to take anything non-essential, and even then I think they would likely be extremely ashamed to have to do so to eat. Basically societal differences. Nb. Definition at Looting: "indiscriminate taking of goods by force as part of a military or political victory, or during a catastrophe or riot, such as during war, natural disaster, or rioting." And at Wicktionary. This link and this one on the subject may be of interest. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, from what I've seen and know of Japanese society (so obviously a real reference would trump my anecdotal account), what you described would be their version of "looting." If it was more widely reported, a mention of some small-scale looting might be appropriate, but I haven't seen it reported like in the other places mentioned since it's not nearly as extreme as those cases. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Page Moved again while I was responding!) Can't claim to be expert, but maybe a long term interest in Japanese culture (w/o formal studies). Some discussion in the links I gave above referred to Cyclone Katrina, & we have heard what a 'cock-up'(wikt:cock-up) the response to that was. A person without food/water in a disaster event is, IMHO, perfectly justified (morally) in taking what they need, especially if it is just lying around and will likely just be scooped up and dumped during 'clean-up'. The 'legal'/law/Police view may be rather different of course. Indeed the people may have in fact been gathering any undamaged items to return them to their owners! (The reporters didn't speak to them so just my speculation/opinion) I can well imagine that if people had to take food, that they will eventually, if they can locate the former owners, insist on paying for what they took (probably with abject apologies for their 'shameful' behaviour!). I don't think we are likely to see any 'civil unrest' (though even Japanese are capable of it),^{[citation needed]} unless the situation becomes dramatically worse.- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I listened to a report on National Public Radio this afternoon which, among other things, noted that none of Japan's famous vending machines had been looted whatsoever. The citation I leave as an exercise to the reader. kencf0618 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not really that notable, as many of the vending machines contain an emergency mode that can be activated which in turn puts them in to free drink mode. It would be rather counterproductive to attempt to break one open when simply peeling back a sticker and pulling a lever will do. - Paul Mundt (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The NPR report made no mention of this emergency mode, but it certainly demonstrates the level of disaster preparation in Japan! kencf0618 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the user who has added the section, Response of Japanese citizens, citing lack of looting or civil unrest in the aftermath. I initially suggested including a mention of this notable non-event. But I'm unable to do it myself now that the article is restricted to editing by established registered users only.

Feel free to add this one more quote to the section. This is on-the-ground observation by several professional reporters who contributed to an Associated Press article, and presumably offers more credibility. "Four days on, there is little of the public anger and frustration that so often bursts forth in other countries. ... Amid the chaos, foreign journalists have remarked on the polite demeanor, the lack of anger, the little if any looting or profiteering that seems to characterize disasters elsewhere." -- Alabaster, Jay, and Olsen, Kelly (March 15, 2011). "Tsunami tests Japan's resilient spirit". Breitbart.com. Retrieved March 16, 2011. -- By PL 70.248.184.55 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A Guardian report actually mentions some theft, break-ins and profiteering.
"After Japan's quake and tsunami, freezing weather threatens relief". The Guardian, 16 March 2011 retrieved, 17 March 2011- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there're some theft or break-ins. But they don't amount to widespread looting. I've changed the discussion section title without the word "absence", which does connotate zero amount. Also the once new article section, Response of Japanese citizens, was properly titled, and should be kept, though it need expansion and tremendous improvement. Don't know why it's been removed. Seems odd that the main article includes the responses of a wide variety of countries and institutions, but those of the victims/survivors themselves are excluded. Please explain. -- 70.244.34.140 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See section 2011 T.e.a.t.(!) — Response of Japanese citizens. I believe that this entire section has been removed previously, and then reinstated. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please fix two of the three links cited in the last paragraph under the subsection Citizens, Response in Japan. Thanks. PL 69.155.134.119 (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Prophecy materials

Is there a wikipedia policy to only limit this to a scientific type article only? I added some predictions related materials. This is being heavily discussed by areas near Japan at the moment. User Flodded first marked it as vandalism. Then marked it a second time as non-scientific. Would it not be good to further expand on Japanese prophecies as well as materials from other cultures? Benjwong (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is that of a neutral point of view, so one's belief or disbelief in such material should not come into account. I am not against having a short, focussed section on prophecies. AugustinMa (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies in finding WP:V & WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask enough fortune cookies/future tellers and somebody's vague prediction will become true. -Koppapa (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Profecies are really a problem. They are never able to fix, individual, time, location and name at the same time; mankind is always free. John Leary told an evacuation in East Asia. But the Pacific Ring of Fire has a cycle, with Sumatra 2004 and Chile 2010 were seems to be a chain reaction now. You can assume anything, arithmetics, profecy or even that profecy is arithmetics. I tend to assume that good profecy is just prognosis of a good engineer, but then, God's Spirit is a Good Engineer.

August 2, 2008: “My people, this massive evacuation of people will be from a natural disaster that will happen along the Asian Pacific Rim of fire. The many people in the vision left walking because the roads were too clogged with vehicles that were deadlocked. There will be a combination of earthquakes and volcanoes on the east coast of Asia that will trigger a fear of evacuations. Many will have their lives saved by this immediate leaving. The damage from this event will affect the economies in this area, and it is a sign for coming major earthquake events on the West coast of America on the eastern Pacific Rim along North America. When these events are finished, there will be some major changes in geography all around the Pacific Rim of fire. You have been seeing increasing activity in these areas as a forewarning of these events to come...” johnleary.com --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever considered prophecies are purposely kept short and cryptic for various reasons, like escape persecutions, fear of punishment etc. Benjwong (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize for initially assuming vandalism rather than assuming good faith; it honestly seemed like vandalism to me. However, I still absolutely do not believe that this information belongs in this article. The very nature of these types of predictions makes them incompatible with scientific discussion. If there were wide media reports about some specific prophecy, that might be worthy of a mention (of the reports, that is), but in this case your prophecy is from some author in Hong Kong, not even Japan (I point that out to rebut your point about it being "heavily discussed"), and I haven't seen any media reports of Japanese people widely thinking some prophecy has come to pass or anything like that. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"The very nature of these types of predictions makes them incompatible with scientific discussion." Disagree: in fact, scientific is one and one is two, profecy is one and one is two, media hype "scientific discussion" is one and one isn't two :( --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Prophecy is "one and one is whatever we interpret it to be that people might believe." Media hype can certainly be the same, which is why we try to be careful about using reliable sources, etc. For one, whether or not this is a prophecy, I do not think the provided source can be stated as reliable. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we always end up in a discussion God exists/ God doesn't exist. About the source, the author in Hong Kon I don't know, johnleary.com I do know many years now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys are mistaken about the cultural part. Prophecies have no geographical or political boundaries. A french fortune teller can predict events outside of france for example. Vice versa a HK fortune teller can make all the worldwide predictions he/she chooses. And yes it is heavily discussed, just not in mainstream media reports. Benjwong (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that predictions should be included but it is notable that in 2007 Satake et al. [1] said that a repeat of the 869 earthquake and tsunami was 99% probable over the next 30 years. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a prophecy, so the rest of this section isn't even relevant... I agree that bit of research should be included, especially since we already have information about what scientists expected from the fault line, how the quake was similar to the 869 quake, etc. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll close. Disagree: there are good predictions by probability, statics, kinetics etc.; there is good prophecy (Nostradamus [2]), there is "profecy" by good networking and inside information (Oracle of Delphi) and there is false prophecy corrupted by despotism. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether there is false prophecy elsewhere is not relevant at all. When you edit an article with on basketball topic, do you actually worry that the other 40 million other people who can't play basketball. No. Obviously this prediction is correct because the earthquake event did occur. If wiki only accepts scientific analysis, that's fine. We can stop there. Benjwong (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The balance When dealing with this sort of content is that Wiki can describe what a group of people believe, but cannot take a stance. We cannot say "The prophecy has come true!" or imply that. However, I have no problem with inserting a sentence or two that indicates (FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE) that some percent of Japanese see it that way. That's heavily heavily contingent on the reputable source. Wiki can describe people's reactions to it without endorsing or offering evaluation of the veracity of the reaction/prophecy.Jbower47 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seiche in Sognefjorden Norway

Two meter high waves in a Norwegian fjord. The fjord's natural frequency and the waves from this earthquake made standing waves called: seiche. Wondering if this is interesting information for this page? Reference (in Norwegian): VG with video and Sogn Avis Gryphonis (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think this isn't relevant enough to include in the article, being a detail about a loosely-linked event happening elsewhere in the world, without casualties/deaths. Definitely belongs on the seiche page I'd say, and it's already there so that's good! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a similiar seiche effect mentioned in the 2010 Chile earthquake article. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an 2011 Tōhoku tsunami impact outside of Japan article to cover the impact of the tsunami outside of Japan, since it is less substantial than in Japan, and noticeably separatable from the quake and nuke incident. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing and/or inaccurate information

Reposting what I said earlier, which seems to have been missed:

• (1) Could we try and get an accurate value for the distance of the epicentre from the coastline? We have one value of 130 km from Sendai and another of 70 km, which might be referring to the area of coastline closest to the epicentre. It would be best if all references to distance from the coastline were referring to a named point on the coastline.
• (2) The lead says the tsunami took "minutes" to reach the coast, but as far as I can make out this refers to the initial tsunami recordings, not the actual tsunami maximums that caused the damage. I think it would be more accurate to say the tsunami took around 30 minutes to reach the coast (please remember that a tsunami travels fast in deep ocean, but slows in coastal shallows), with other areas hit later (e.g. Sendai over an hour after the earthquake).

I find the article a little confusing about tsunami speed. Deep water tsunamis (ocean floor at earthquake location is 990 m below sea level, depth from Google Earth) can travel as fast as a jet, around 970 km/h , then slow to 50 km/h in shallow water. Around Sendai, there is 25 km of relatively shallow (30 m) waters, but at Otsuchi and Kamaishi, the ocean floor remains deep until about 8 km out. This I think explains a lot of why it hit so much faster in places which were in fact further away from the epicentre, but it would be nice to see some additional information edited by an expert in tsunamis to help clarify speed and different hit times.--Tallard (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• (3) Finally, the fact that the earthquake lasted 5 minutes is still in the infobox but not the article (as far as I can see). This is a notable aspect of the earthquake and should be mentioned in the main text if a good reference for the duration can be found.
• (4) There appears to be nothing yet on whether the tsunamis impacting Japan's coastline were negative or positive waves. From reading this and the video coverage, I would suspect most of the tsunamis in Japan were of the 'initial rise first' sort, but there may be aspects of the phase dynamics to all this that are difficult to put in the article right now if no sources have covered this yet. But it is something to look out for.

I would try and do this myself, but haven't had time yet. I'm hoping others can do this, as I think these are vital aspects of the article that shouldn't be neglected. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially with point 1. I'm going to look for more references here; if the nearest point on Honshu was indeed 70km, I think we should be reporting that number primarily. It seems to me like the primary reason the 130km value came about is because of the original Sendai article title, so information was added in relevant to Sendai. I'll see if I can substantiate that 70km value elsewhere. Also, what is the Japanese media reporting as "location"? (E.g., are they reporting it in x kilometers from y location as we are at all?) As for point 2, I'm not sure how to clarify this properly. The tsunami DID arrive after minutes; like you said, it then took longer for the tsunami maximums to arrive and cause real damage. What time is generally reported? When the water starts receding (if it does), when the initial waves hit, or when the big waves hit? Point 3, earthquake duration, I believe we actually had a reference in the body saying 6 minutes which seems to be gone. The current source is simply "NBC Nightly News" with a date, I'd think at this point we could come up with a better reference and include it in the body. It made more sense to use news refs during the first few days of breaking news (I certainly inserted a bunch of NHK WORLD English live stream refs), but now a lot of that can be replaced with actual articles that the reader can click on... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edited duration to 6 minutes and added it to the body as well with new refs; someone provided an updated reference that clearly describes it as being about 6 minutes long. Another thing that I think needs to be cleaned up along with the distance is just how we describe the quake (location, other included data like type and timezone, etc); the lede and the main both both describe it differently, and both have merits to how they describe it so neither one is simply better... I tried to clean that up slightly, but the bigger problem is how to describe the source point, e.g. Sendai, although if we end just replacing it it doesn't really matter... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. However, being new to WIKPEDIA, I wonder how anything will get changed after the good questions you ask. ONE MORE SUGGESTION: If you really want to get to the bottom of the question about "distance", one needs to distinguish between the distance of anything from the epicenter, which is the initiation point (zero length) of a rupture that exceeded 400 km in this case. The nearest points of the rupture plane to the coast all along the coast is another measure one may want to discuss, and finally what is the location of the tsunami source, an object of large dimensions (exceeding 100 km).Maxwyss (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Deletion of Wikinews links

user:Ohconfucius has been deleting Wikinews links from the various subarticles, are we good with that? I noticed that the Nuclear timeline article no longer linked to wikinews next to the date at which the wikinews article related to, then saw that several other articles now no longer have Wikinews. Ohconfucius's edit comments have no indication that any such edit is taking place, only that some fixing of date formats is occurring, which is quite misleading. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a very well established editor who does note some "date-related cleanup projects" on his/her user page, so I'd assume good faith... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

...though if they're not back shortly, we should probably put them back and contact that editor. Don't see why some sort of maintenance would remove them for more than a little while. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On his talk page, he said they were not worthy of being on Wikipedia. That still doesn't explain why his edit comment did not indicate the removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a direct breach of WP:SISTER. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's the breach? That isn't policy, just common sense. It wasn't right to remove the links for his reason given but I see nothing actionable in it per se unless it escalate(s/d) into an edit war. Anyway, best to keep this discussion confined to one page for easier following; suggest the thread at WP:ANI. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry... actionable? Please link to the diff with my demand for 'action'. The guideline specifically encourages use of sister project links. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SISTER encourages the use of links where those links "are likely to be useful to our readers". Ohconfucius stated that "None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. In general terms, the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN, and this case is no exception." This does not seem an unreasonable opinion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aimed to be a starting point for people researching a given topic. One of the most fascinating ways to research any topic is to go through contemporary news reports and watch the story unfold - something an encyclopaedia, as a conprehensive overview, cannot give. The two projects closely complement each other. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of Wikinews is to be a news site. The point of Wikipedia is to be a historical record of events. The two are very different aims. Right now, as the events are happening, the two may seem redundant, and to an extent probably are. In the future, though, the WP article will (should) be written in the past tense, show the entire story from the perspective of the present day, basically be a very broad overview of these events. Meanwhile, the value of the Wikinews links increases over time, because they show the event as it was happening, a very different perspective than that offered by Wikipedia. As this topic in WP reaches maturity, rather than being a random collection of news stories, WP an WN articles end up complementing, rather than going against, each other. C628 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with user:Ohconfucius on this, they don't add anything to the article. The rest is irrelevant. 86.159.92.13 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to review the talkpage of WP:SISTER, Blood Red Sandman. It discusses (and links to further discussions, with additional explanation) why that page isn't considered a Wikipedia guideline, and hasn't been since 2008. The inclusion of links to non-Wikipedia sites – whether part of WMF sister projects or not – provides an implicit endorsement of those links' quality and relevance to the topic at hand. Among other reasons, there are serious and legitimate concerns about linking to freely-editable content. (There's no double standard here; we don't consider Wikipedia articles reliable sources either.)

If you would like to make an argument for the content at Wikinews being a suitable external link containing additional information relevant to this topic in this particular instance, please do so. Assertions that such links must be included just because they're on a sister project, however, are insufficient. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not made such an assertion, and have made an argument for inclusion already - above. If it is not a guideline, then why does it say it is? But, no matter. Wikinews is not "freely-editable" in any normal sense and hasn't been since ('07? '08? The latter, I think). Everything is factchecked, POV-checked, style-checked and copyright-checked before it goes out. This is enforced by use of FlaggedRevs. Further information on that's available at n:Wikinews:Reviewing articles; an important thing to note is that it's not a mere vandalism-control similar to Pending Changes. The historic value of snapshots in time is discussed above - "the value of the Wikinews links increases over time" is an excellant point. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd say in general I'm adverse to removal of properly sourced content on a unilateral basis, especially if it's based on whether someone thinks it's worth or not. If it's an RS, then I'd advocate for discussion of removal, not unilateral action. Someone, in good faith, went to the trouble to add that content. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least talk through the issue before deleting it without a glaring issue (non-sourced, vandalism, etc)Jbower47 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Edit request - Electricity section

The electricity section says: "Two of those reactors, the Fukushima Dai-ichi and Fukushima Dai-ni, were automatically taken offline"... But these are Reactor _complexes_, each with many reactors. I'd like to see the word "reactors" in the sentence fragment replaced with "reactor complexes". (Elsewhere in the article gets it right.)

And... missing in both the timeline article, and this article, is any mention of the 3 radioactive gas releases done at Fukushima Dai-ni, to prevent the kind of explosions that happened at Fukushima Dai-ichi . 173.206.138.245 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Did the first edit. As for the second part, the press release talks about "preparation work" to release some radioactive gas at all four reactors at Fukushima Dai-ni (so was it 3 or 4?), but I can't tell if they JUST did preparation work or if it's a bad translation and they actually did release the gas. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 09:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change about those two plants. (10 reactors, 7 operational at the time, all shut down automatically.) TEPCO reported that radiation readings at the plant gate did not increase measurably over background, and they reported it as a Level 3 incident. Both these are consistent with them actually releasing pressure. (As is the fact that the units did not explode.) I'll poke around for more definitive reporting on this.

According to http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/press-release-mar-132011impact-tepcoamp39s-facilities-due-miyagikenoki-earthquake-300pm http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031310-e.html , near the bottom, (past the much scarier info about Daichi), and referring to the preparations to release pressure, it says: "At present, we have decided to prepare implementing measures to reduce the pressure of the reactor containment vessel (partial discharge of air containing radioactive materials) in order to fully secure safety. These measures are considered to be implemented in Units 1, 2 and 3 and accordingly, we have reported and/or noticed the government agencies concerned." (You will need Chrome, IE, or cut'n'paste into notepad from firefox, to read the text, since it doesn't wrap properly.)173.206.138.245 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, for some reason, the shutdowns at Onagawa and Tokai have disappeared from this section of the article. Tokai had one operational unit (#2), and one in process of being dismantled. Onagawa had 3 reactors, but only 2 were online at the time of the earthquake. These 3 (of 5) reactors were also shut down automatically. (Japan only has 53 reactors to begin with, so you can see why there's a big power impact.) You can see confirmation that the reactors at these plants are "in "cold shutdown", at: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html , update at (15 March 2011, 14:10 UTC)173.206.138.245 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This section also seems to imply that the 25% of TEPCO's energy production loss was all nuclear. This isn't quite accurate: They also lost a few non nuclear "thermal generating plants". In particular, they also lost: Hirono Thermal Power Station Units 2 and 4: shutdown due to earthquake Hitachinaka Thermal Power Station Unit 1: shutdown due to earthquake Kashima Thermal Power Station Units 2, 3, 5, 6: shutdown due to earthquake Ohi Thermal Power Station Unit 2: shutdown due to earthquake (Unit 3 resumed operation) Higashi-Ohgishima Thermal Power Station Unit 1: shutdown due to earthquake (plus LOTS of transmission equipment.)

See: http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/press-release-mar-132011impact-tepcoamp39s-facilities-due-miyagikenoki-earthquake-300pm http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031310-e.html and 173.206.138.245 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tidal flooding

Shouldn't this article cover the subsidence of coastal areas, now rendering large zones lower than high-tide levels? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I read about this somewhere as well. Could you provide some examples of sources that cover this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

From Archive 3 there is this source which refers to 2 ft (60 cm) of subsidence of a 250 km long section of the coast. Mikenorton (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also [3]. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxwyss, 20 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I requested a change of this text before but it was not made, or made incorrectly. It is tiresome when I go to the trouble to help you, but you continue to carry statements that can be verified as wrong in any textbook. Please tell me: Why did you not use the replacement text I sent previously? I am seriously discouraged to help WIKIPEDIA. Do you require a mini-lecture, like the one below, each time someone discovers an error?

Now the wrong text reads: "One minute prior to the effects of the earthquake being felt in Tokyo, the Earthquake Early Warning system, which is connected to more than 1,000 seismometers in Japan, sent out warnings of an impending earthquake to millions."

ERROR 1: This is an inadmissible factual error. "warnings of an impending earthquake" means that the earthquake had not happened yet, at the time of the warning. That has not happened, That would be eq prediction. THIS TEXT MUST BE DELETED. Early warnings are issued after the earthquake rupture has started and they may reach the consumer, in lucky circumstances, before the strong shaking reaches him.

ERROR 2: This is an awkward, even distorted way to describe a technical aspect. The "Earthquake Early Warning system, which is connected" does not convey the true situation. The EEW is not "connected" to something. It is a system that consists of seismometers, communication lines, computers, and human quality control. PLEASE GET RID OF THIS MISLEADING WORDING.

Maxwyss (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Maxwyss (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done. The article correctly states that a warning was sent out before the earthquake waves had propagated as far as Tokyo, that is after the the earthquake was registered by seismometers nearer the epicenter, which triggered the warning. However, it probably could be reworded as "the Earthquake Early Warning system, which includes more than 1,000 seismometers in Japan, sent out warnings of the impending arrival of the seismic waves from the earthquake to millions". Mikenorton (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maxwyss, please understand that we operate on references here. The current information is based off a reference that's included in the article. I understand that you're in the field and all, and we appreciate the expertise, but we still need a better reference provided than simply your assertion that the information is incorrect. I do agree with the edit Mikenorton proposes since it'll make it more accurate and eliminate one of your concerns, so I went ahead and made it. (Though the old wording wasn't technically wrong, it IS connected to those seismometers, which are what allowed it to detect the initial earthquake waves.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacific plate moved west or east?

In the article under "Geophysical impact" it states following: "The Pacific plate itself may have moved eastwards by up to 20 m...." Shouldn't this read westwards instead of eastwards? My common sense tells me it should be westwards. The article used for reference for this statements also says westwards: "The Pacific plate has moved a maximum of 20m westwards, but the amount of movement will vary even within the fault," said Dr Musson. 85.221.32.242 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are very definitely right: The Pacific plate moved westward.Maxwyss (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Impact on the global supply chain of manufacturing industries

We should cover all manufacturing sectors so that readers can learn the impact on the global supply chain of key components and materials exported from Japan to the rest of the world: Automotive components, electronic devices for smartphones, tablets, and computers, steel products, jet engines, to name only a few. Please add more information on this matter. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.chosunonline.com/news/20110319000037 東日本巨大地震：日本製部品の供給中断、世界に影響
• 日本の震災受け供給への懸念、世界の携帯電話メーカーに波及
• 大震災で部品供給停止、ＧＭなど世界の製造業に打撃 被災地に有力工場が集積
• Supply concerns grow as Japan lacks parts, power

Article Name has adversely affected Google search

It's been a few days since the name of the article was changed from 2011 Sendai... to 2011 Tohoku. When it was named Sendai... a Google search revealed the Wikipedia article in the first items. Now Googling for this article has become more difficult. I realise most of the people reading this talk page know how to search beyond the first items of Google search, but I'm thinking here of Wikipedia success in general. We are used to finding Wikipedia among first search results, and for this article to have have lost first page result status because of the name change I find undesirable. In previous naming conversations, priority was given to Japanese language name while no consideration was given to article "searchability". I'd be surprised if English language speakers ever really call this event by Tohoku, I suspect Sendai and/or Japan will remain the common name and that this article will always be "off" when internet users search for it. Isn't "searchability" a top priority for naming Wikipedia articles?--Tallard (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, no. Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a good idea to try to tune our article titles to suit the whims of search engines. Wikipedia really isn't supposed to be a news service, and we probably shouldn't expect to be the top search result on every breaking news story. In any event, a Google search for japan earthquake still pulls up (appropriately, I think) List of earthquakes in Japan on the first page of hits. A search for japan earthquake 2011 returns this article as the very first web result. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Source needed for quake being 70km? off the coast

There was a discussion started by Carcharoth, one point of which was concerning the distance from the coastline. The article has stated 130km from Sendai since I started editing it, but there's also a bit of text that claims 70km. If you look at a map, it is indeed clear that the Oshika Peninsula, which sticks down into the water kinda between the epicenter and Sendai, is roughly half the distance from the epicenter that Sendai is. We even mention in the lede that the quake was 130km off the coast of the Oshika Peninsula (which is wrong), and that it happened there near Sendai (implying Sendai is on the Oshika Peninsula as well, also wrong.) I believe the only reason we have the value based on distance on Sendai is due to the article's original name.

Anyways, I'd like to change this to 70km or whatever the more appropriate value is. We're reporting it in our lede, and it's an important value that's off, so I think it needs to be fixed. However, neither of the two references for that 70km value actually contains a reference to that value (one of them says 200km off the coast, the other only has distance from Tokyo), but again it is pretty obvious from a map that based on the epicenter location and 130km from Sendai, 70km is a reasonable value for the Oshika Peninsula. The Oshika Peninsula article also says it was the closest point on land (other than some tiny island) to the epicenter, but neither of the two references for that backs it up. I can't seem to find a better reference; can anyone else? Perhaps a Japanese one?

Would it be WP:SYNTH to plug the epicenter coords into Google Earth and measure to the nearest point on the mainland, or is that a reasonable use of WP:CALC...it's not technically a calculation (though in some ways it is), but it's along the spirit of the policy. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I took some measurements in Google Earth just to confirm the values. It's roughly 67km to that tiny island off the Oshika Peninsula, 72km to the closest point on the coastline of the mainland Oshika Peninsula itself, and about 118km to the closest bit of coastline to Sendai. (So my measurement matches with the current 119km value from the USGS, I'm likely using a slightly different endpoint since it's hard to tell where Sendai's coast ends and the next town begins.) So reporting "about 70km" to the Oshika Peninsula seems valid. This seems like a fairly "routine calculation"; I simply asked Google Earth to calculate the distance between a known set of coordinates and a clear visual reference on a map. Anyone agree or disagree that this is usable under WP:CALC? (Edit: 38.312°N, 141.541°E is a good point on Oshika Peninsula to check with Google Maps to see where things are, that's one of the closest points to the epicenter. I'm not sure if you can check distance between lat/long points there, but you can use the ruler in Google Earth to do it rather precisely.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That tiny island, Kinkasan, article has no information about the quake. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It does now. Edit: There's an even smaller island that's the 67km one I meant, Kinkasan is about 1km further. Google Earth has no English name for the tiny island, so we can't list it by name as we could with Kinkasan. So "approximately 70km off Oshika Peninsula..." is probably best since saying "67km off the coast of a small Japanese island off of Oshika Peninsula with no English name but that literally translates to 'Random Small Island off Oshika Peninsula'" is a bit excessive. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See this source. It says 130km ESE off Ojika/Oshika Peninsula. Oda Mari (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ojika Peninsula, apparently with Mt. Otakamori on it, is 50km to the west of the Oshika Peninsula according to Google Maps (but that may be wrong and they may be the same; the 130km value from Oshika is definitely wrong though, as easily shown on a map.) However, the Wikipedia article claims they're the same peninsula, but this seems to may be incorrect. However, it doesn't matter since the distance estimate from the nearest mainland definitely doesn't make sense anyways; simply look at how far Sendai is, and how far the Oshika Peninsula is. I went ahead and made the change, because the lede was incorrect about at least two facts (it being 120km off the Oshika Peninsula, and Sendai being implied as the "near" location on the Oshika Peninsula, which it isn't.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ojika/Oshika is like the different between the pronunciation of to-may-to and to-ma-to for tomato. I personally call the peninsula Ojika. Mt. Otakamori lies in the Miyato Island, Higashimatsushima, Miyagi. Oda Mari (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Google Maps is wrong then; at least we don't have to fix Wikipedia on that one. :) But the data from that reference is wrong; I think they meant to say 130km ESE of Sendai. Just look at the relative positions of the Oshika Peninsula and Sendai on a map compared to the earthquake location. The scale bars do indicate about 70km and 130km respectively. (Oshika Peninsula is that thing sticking down about halfway between Sendai and the epicenter, unless that's wrong too, but multiple sources seem to agree on that including the Wikipedia page.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Google uses Zenrin's Japanese map and it probably covers the territorial waters but I'm not sure if it covers exclusive Economic Zone and have no idea how does Google deal with open sea and its accuracy. I found another RS. Hope it helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Bing uses Zenrin as well for Japan, I'd thought that might be a useful comparison. Regardless, the Oshika Peninsula is a pretty decent little chunk of land with other sources backing up its location, so we don't even really need to care about what's covered or not offshore since it's a peninsula; there could be tiny islands missing so distance to the nearest land might be off, but not the distance to Oshika (thus part of continuing to use it as the reference point.) Thanks for that additional resource, but it doesn't seem to have anything other sources don't have. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, it appears the reason the Zenrin data seems wrong is that it has no entry for Oshika Peninsula if you search except for a few entries for similar business names/etc...and on Google Maps the first of which happens to be located near Miyato Island, which is why I thought that was "Ojika Peninsula." However, there's a "Oshika Peninsula" label (probably from a different data source) where Oshika/Ojika Peninsula actually is, so it does appear in the right location and labeled correctly on Google Maps/etc due to that. The description of Kinkasan's location, etc, back that up. (Also, my 118km to Sendai...USGS is actually 129km, but that's for the distance to the city center, whereas my distance was to the coastline.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The USGS uses the phrase "epicentral region" in conjunction with (not instead of) "epicenter" (38.322°N 142.369°E) at here. Perhaps this phrase may help by slightly re-focusing the explicit thrust of this thread? --Tenmei (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, the news tends to be all over the reported epicenter, etc, and that tends to be one of the major pieces of information people want presented in a more descriptive fashion than just coordinates, I think. So it makes sense to have an accurate description of the epicenter location when we have one, since "epicentral region" just isn't common terminology, so it especially makes sense to keep it out of the lede. Then again, I just noticed that the USGS information states a +/- 13.5km horizontal margin of error, so a number like "72km" may be too specific due to that. Perhaps we need to say "60 - 90km off the coast" or something more vague instead. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticed you edited to highlight "in conjunction with"... I don't disagree, I was specifically referring to not mentioning it in the lede since it's less common terminology and requires a little bit of explanation, whereas epicenter doesn't and is basically an "expected" value to see in the summary of an earthquake. I agree it makes sense to add that into the main article body. (Also realized that some positional uncertainty is normal and expected, so using a value like 72km isn't bad, it'd just be nice to have a better reference. The USGS uses specific values for distances to cities, on the same document where they specify the uncertainty.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We have no disagreement. I endorse the reasoning of diffs here and here. In the context of this thread only, please recall two sentences which are already in our article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011

"A quake of this magnitude usually has a rupture length of at least 480 km (300 mi) and generally requires a long, relatively straight fault surface. Because the plate boundary and subduction zone in the area of the rupture is not very straight, it is unusual for the magnitude of an earthquake to exceed 8.5...." -- see USGS Poster "Great Tohoku Earthquake"

I changed +/- to read "approximately" for location (and added it in the body where we refer to the 72km number again), and just removed it from depth. From both the bulletin (you can see there's no uncertainty given for depth, while there is for position) and my brief research, it looks like depth is more accurately known, so it doesn't really need that "approximately" qualifier I think. If anyone knows contrary, please contradict me... –flodded ☃ (gripe) 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you flodded, but the 32 km depth from the USGS is marked "set by the location programme". It's OK for now, but it will be refined once full waveform modelling using both P and S-waves is carried out, which may take a few months to get reported - expect a few papers on the earthquake mechanics to be rushed out fairly soon. Mikenorton (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I was actually slightly curious about what "set by location program" meant, which I guess means some non-refined depth-determining program was used as one of the inputs to calculate the other data, or that they just couldn't generate the stdev estimation for it. I added "approximately" to the depth in the lede per that information. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding of those words as well, I imagine they set a rough depth and then use that to produce the other information. Note that on the USGS poster the main event is given a depth of 24.4 km, which sounds a bit more precise. Mikenorton (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that value on the poster is wrong. On the main USGS Tohoku page, the depth is 32km. However, when the magnitude was still 8.9, the depth was listed as 24.4km at that time. It was updated to 32km in tandem with the magnitude being updated to 9.0, suggesting both came from the same new data... The poster is a more generalized view of things, so I'd expect it to be less accurate. (Note that I specifically put sigfig=3 on the {{convert}}s used for the 32km depth, so that it'd get the same 19.9mi conversion as the USGS page and not convert to 20mi; in other words, I think their value is indeed 32.0km, if that's what you meant by more precise.) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the 24.4 value but I take your point about it being an earlier estimate. Mikenorton (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the "saw-tooth Sanriku Coast" (三陸リアス式海岸, Sanriku-riasushiki-kaigan) is somewhat mirrored in the irregularity of the undersea epicentral region. This does not need to be in the introductory paragraph, but it should considered in our editing discussion. --Tenmei 22 March 2011

The quote above refers to the shape of the whole rupture surface and says nothing about the irregularity of the epicentral region. The 'epicentral region' of an earthquake is defined as an elliptical area that contains the region of highest felt intensity of an earthquake and is used for identifying the likely epicentre for historical events (described here) - on the poster I take it to mean simply 'the region within which the epicenter lies' as a title for the inset on the larger map rather than this more specific meaning. Mikenorton (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that section. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Since consensus (so far) seems to favor sticking with this 72km value and location...perhaps we should use the map from Tōhoku? It has the region in bold, but of course more areas were affected than just the ones in bold. But I think we need to be more specific on the map than just labeling "Sendai." We could use that map and still do the same city dots...or if the current map style is more appropriate, outline the Tōhoku region, and in either case have a line pointing to that area labeled "Tōhoku region" to differentiate it from a city marker. I have little graphics experience, someone who knows how to do this without fumbling around for an hour is more than welcome to do so. :) –flodded ☃ (gripe) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Potassium iodide

With the increased acquisition and prophylactic consumption of the pills, it would be good to increase the potassium iodide article on the effects of overdosing on it. The news channels keep saying something about thyroid damage. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peak ground acceleration values

On a couple of occasions over the past few days I have expanded information regarding peak ground acceleration, to clarify the figures, and each time it has been removed. I have no intention of starting an edit war, but I do feel we need to provide clear and unambiguous figures. Currently, the article states "Japan's National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) recorded a peak ground acceleration of 2.99 g (29.33 m/s²). The highest acceleration recorded in the Tokyo metropolitan area was 0.16 g." This is a nonsense comparison, since the two measurements are calculated differently. PGA is recorded in three directions at each station by accelographs: two horizontal (usually N-S and E-W) and vertically. When reporting the PGA for an area, the USGS (and many other countries) quote the single largest figure (eg. the 0.16g in Tokyo). The Japanese system is to quote the vector sum of the three figures: i.e the square root of the sum of the squares of each component. The 2.99 figure is obtained by that method (specified in the cite), and is consequently higher than the standard reporting used by most other sources. My edits identified this figure (and the one in the infobox) as a vector sum, and added the single-value figure from USGS so that people could understand the PGA in the most commonly-used parameters. It is pointless giving figures in this article which mislead by inaccuracy, and to imply (to most readers) an astonishingly high PGA. I will restore my information, with a link to this talk message. If anyone feels this clarification is unnecessary, then perhaps we can debate it here rather than removing it (perhaps there is a good reason not to explain the figures, and people won't be misled by our comparison of apples with oranges, but I'd like to debate that here rather than the brief edit summaries which only imply a lack of comprehension.). Gwinva (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is in a shelter?

Is it possible to describe the shelters generally? I wish to know more about the facility, service, management and problems of the shelters.

• Are all shelters the same or are they all different?
• Are those buildings designed to be shelters?
• How do people in the shelters dial and take phone calls? Or they use their own cellphones?
• How are the shelters managed? How do they manage disputes and crimes?

Thank you.114.25.190.196 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)