Japan and Earthquake/Tsunami Mitigation

Japan and Earthquake/Tsunami Mitigation
Geography 312 – Term Paper
Alexandra Bradshaw – 301144682
March 29th, 2012

On March 11th 2011, Japan suffered a 9.0 magnitude earthquake off its northern coast, followed by an enormous tsunami which took the lives of around 20,000 people. An earthquake of this magnitude had never been experienced in the history of mankind, and came as a shock to many seismologists. With the title of being the most earthquake prepared country in the world, Japan was thought to be properly armed against any quake that came its way. Mitigation efforts are the most technological of anywhere in the world, and ensuring people are prepared for such events has been an important task since the last devastating earthquake in 1995 in the city of Kobe. These efforts include building codes, early warning systems, coastline defences and various others. Even after a year, Japan is still reeling from this event, and one wonders if they will ever bounce back from such a blow to their landscape, their people, and their economy. The questions to be asked then are why did so many people perish in this disaster (even with the most advanced warning systems), and what can Japan do to revitalize itself with regards to physical, cultural, and economical adaptations?
Japan’s Earthquake History The people of Japan have been recording their earthquakes since the dawn of imperialism – at least 1600 years ago (Bressen, 2011) – and have since had various explanations for these rumblings. According to Japanese folklore, the earthquakes were caused by an enormous catfish named Namazu who was buried in the ground and subsequently would cause the quakes with the shaking of his tail (Bressen, 2011). Even with the modern era, naturalists would write off earthquakes as being punishment for greedy people by the gods. Only until recently have investigating the real cause of these earthquakes come to fruition. Japan lies within the “Ring of Fire”, an area in the Pacific Ocean subject to much seismic activity, and is situated where 4 of these great lithospheric plates (the Pacific, the Philippine, the Eurasian and the North American plate) collide and scrape past each other. Most of the earthquakes occur along Japan’s northern expansive coastline, and more often than not are followed by tsunamis of varying height. These earthquakes can occur in two different places: within a plate or between plate boundaries, or inland in shallow crustal areas (Ikeuchi and Isago 2007). The latter of the two can cause more building damage, but with the earthquake being inland, they don’t usually cause a tsunami. The March 11th Earthquake was the 3rd Great (7.0 or higher on the Richter scale) earthquake of the 20th century: the first was the Kanto earthquake (Stanley and Irving 2001) in 1923 which killed over 130,000 people (slated as the deadliest quake in Japan’s history), and the second was the 1995 Kobe earthquake which took the lives of over 5,000 people (2002).
Mitigation Techniques Pre-March 11th Japan has certainly always been the most prepared country with regards to earthquakes, especially vis-à-vis its past quake events. Some areas are more protected than others, mostly in the northern coastal areas of the country. Before the March 11th earthquake, Japan set up a Wide Area Support System that would, in the event of an earthquake, immediately dispatch emergency response teams and other important rescue teams (EERI 2011). Also, Japan has the only Earthquake warning system in the world, using state of the art technology to warn individuals of earthquakes before they happen and prior to the March 11th earthquake the system had never been used before (JMA 2012). This system would allow for people to mitigate themselves by quickly ducking or removing themselves from potentially harmful situations (JMA 2012). The way the system works is that it sends out alerts via social media, i.e. cellphones, television, radio, and internet sites, which in turn automatically shut off any energy and industrial sites and halts transportation services such as buses and subways (Knight 2011). Also in the event of an earthquake, special buoys are set up out in the ocean that can detect the presence of an abnormally sized wave passing by, ultimately forecasting a tsunami (Knight 2011). There are also mitigation techniques that can reduce the damage done to areas with lots of infrastructure. New buildings are being constructed with strict earthquake safety codes, and some of the older buildings are being retrofitted with some of these techniques. Structures have deeper foundations with some bases being able to move semi-independently from the rest of the structure in order to reduce resistance in the event of an earthquake (Emrick 2011). Shock absorbers are also being installed so as to allow the building to sway back and forth with the earthquake waves rather than resist and fail to hold up (Emrick 2011). All of these techniques are probably what saved many of the buildings inland that felt the shakes from the March 11th earthquake. This does not account for why then so many people still died.
What Went Wrong? The problem for the people of the Tohoku region in Japan that day, March 11th, may not have been the soaring 9.0 magnitude of the earthquake, but rather the inability to properly forecast the height of the impending tsunami. It has been determined in fact that the cause of most of the 20,000+ deaths that day (around 90%) was actually drowning (EERI 2011). The tsunami caused much more damage than the earthquake did, suggesting that indeed Japan’s earthquake mitigation efforts are in fact top of the line. What is lacking however is how Japan mitigates itself against tsunami waves, especially ones of this scale. The system that was in order before March 11th would try to estimate the exact size of the wave in the event on an earthquake. After a magnitude 8.0 or higher earthquake struck, it was hard for the system to determine the size of the wave, and it would often drastically underestimate (Cyranoski 2011). The system would determine a size from the initial waves of the earthquake, but ones of 8.0 or higher can often last longer as well (Cyranoski 2011). Because of this, they can often increase in magnitude as time goes on. The initial earthquake waves suggested that the tsunami would only be 3 metres high, but a minute later the earthquake had reached a 9.0 magnitude and the actual size was an astonishing 10 metres (Cyranoski 2011). This was only discovered 20 minutes after the initial shockwave, and by then it was almost too late. The evacuating process of the affected coastal cities was slow as most people were misinformed that the wave would be smaller (Cyranoski 2011). If the initial readings had been correct, coastal areas would have had 20-40 minutes to evacuate to high ground, rather than be less concerned with this because of misinformation. Many lives could potentially have been saved, so it is a great disappointment that a mistake like this was made that day.
Revitalizing a Nation: Mitigation Post March11th There is no doubt that Japan’s morale was seriously battered after the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Whole cities had been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people had been left homeless. But what measures could be taken to revitalize the country and allow for its residents to heal and not have to live in fear of history repeating itself? The question now was whether or not Japan could use this disaster as a way of making sure something of this magnitude of disaster could never reoccur. Post March 11th, the government has been planning and researching different ways to provide significant warning of earthquakes and their tsunami’s, and new technologies are in the process of being developed. Japan has come up with ways of using outer space and the sea floor as new areas of mitigation. The government is in talks of laying out seismograph-connected cables near plate boundaries in order to detect possible increases in seismic energy (or increased pressure in subduction zones)(2012). Along with this, they would set up devices for observation purposes near the troublesome trench so as to keep a constant eye on the area for sudden movements (2012). These techniques will counter the problem associated with the Japan Meteorological Agency with accurately measuring an earthquake higher than an 8.0 on the Richter scale. Along with the sea floor devices, satellites in space will also be put to good use in the event of an earthquake. The satellites will take pictures of impending tsunamis and determine their size with the birds-eye-view they will have associated with being in space (2012). To make sure communication with satellites isn’t disturbed in the event of an earthquake, extra-large dishes will be employed that can converse with these satellites via cellphone networks (2012). In the event of an emergency, this will be a lot more reliable. Experts have also suggested that more building mitigation must be installed on tsunami affected coastlines. Higher sea walls might mean better protection from a tsunami, and flood gates in areas with ports could possibly reduce the chance of important waterways being destroyed (Dengler 2011). All of these mitigation efforts are however extremely expensive, and some people are wondering if it would even be of Japan’s best interest to bother now as catastrophic events such as the one on March 11th are tremendously rare. Could it be beneficial for Japan to mitigate now rather than waiting? I believe yes. Although costly now, mitigation efforts will make sure that the economic woes this disaster brought on Japan won’t happen again. In the long-run, it will be beneficial. Some more natural mitigation techniques can be instated as well. There are ways to make sure tsunami waves may subside before hitting densely populated areas. Developing artificial coral reefs on tsunami affected coasts have been known to slow down waves by acting as a natural barrier. These would also help to install a proficient coastal habitat for ocean creatures, and possibly revitalize any damage done to the disaster affected fishing industries. This type of mitigation is especially important in areas where communities are reclaiming land from the ocean (Stoda 2011). Also important is to plant dense vegetation along coastlines such as mangroves or sturdy trees that could also act as a barrier against tsunamis. These can also provide animals with sufficient habitats and rejuvenate ecosystems that may have been damaged along the devastated coastal areas. Individuals can help themselves as well by educating themselves on earthquakes and tsunamis, and by making sure they know a route that they can take to higher ground in the event of such a thing. In more ideal situation, individuals could also relocate themselves more inland so as to avoid high impact areas. This isn’t as easy to do however, so making an escape route plan is the best option. In some communities, people have regular evacuation drills that are organized and helpful in the event of a tsunami (EERI 2011). In the areas that have these drills, most people were able to escape before the tsunami hit on March 11th (EERI 2011). The hopes of all these ideas for continuing the safety of the affected regions is that people will accept them and realize that they can help in ensuring their own safety and those around them, but also to give them a base support of mitigation so that they don’t have to do it all on their own.

The Quest for a Nuclear Phase Out This would not be a paper on the events of March 11th if it were not to mention the subsequent nuclear disaster that occurred as a result of the tsunami. As of right now, the 4 of the reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant are in stage 7 meltdown – the highest a meltdown can be (Strickland 2011). After the initial earthquake, the plant automatically shut down, and emergency generators began running in order to maintain the cooling of the reactors. However, after the tsunami flooded the generator rooms, they ceased to work, and the reactors began to overheat (Strickland 2011). Subsequent to this, there have been several hydrogen explosions and related deaths. Future deaths due to overexposure to radiation have been calculated to be very high, even though a 20 km radius around the plant was evacuated (Strickland 2011). This meltdown was the largest nuclear disaster to happen since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, even though it was only about 1/10th the size of Chernobyl. Overnight, Japan’s opinion on their dependency on nuclear energy was changed. Why would a country so prone to devastating earthquakes rely so heavily on fragile nuclear power plants? And why hasn’t Japan harnessed its abundant geothermal energy? Nuclear power makes up 19% of Japan’s electricity producers, and geothermal is less than 1%. First, the negatives of this safer energy must be laid out so as to see why it might not immediately be accessible. For one thing, the cost of building geothermal power plants is very high, as large areas are needed. The initial drilling into the earth is also very expensive. Geothermal power can also be a little unreliable, as forces within the earth sometimes take breaks and may not go back online for years in some cases. Considering all of these, I believe that the advantages heavily outweigh the disadvantages, especially for a country such as Japan. Geothermal plants, though expensive at first, can quickly pay themselves off with the amount of electricity that can be produced. The energy that comes out of it is much cleaner, and there are no devastating effects that this energy can have on the surrounding environment (not like nuclear). If Japan instated more geothermal plants with capacities of 270 megawatts each (Maeda and Tsukimori 2012), 80,000 megawatts of energy could be produced from it alone (Tohill 2011). Considering their location on the ring of fire, Japan could easily build plants in many areas and harness the forces that are so often devastating to them as a nation. The geothermal plants that already do exist in the country were able to remain online even during the earthquake that stalled so many nuclear plants. More than 80% of Japan’s population has gone anti-nuclear, and are rallying in support of shutting down all nuclear plants, and phasing it out completely. With this amount of support, the Japanese government is seriously considering this idea, and will hopefully make the switch within the next few decades.
Here in Vancouver: The Wait Continues Being in Vancouver, another city in the Ring of Fire, one must consider that something as devastating as the March 11th earthquake could happen right here as well. Immediately after the events of that day, Vancouver went into evaluating its own situation and what mitigation could be done her to ensure that a disaster like that won’t have the same effects as it did on the Japanese. Earthquake preparedness journals were abundant afterwards, with advice on what to do in the event of a large earthquake, and what items you may need to ensure that you can stay safe during and after the event. March 11th also made people worry if the seismic upgrades given to some of the older structures in Vancouver would be able to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude like the one in Japan. Like Japan, Vancouver could be subject to either an offshore super quake or a shallower more devastating inland quake. Are we prepared for such an occurrence? Also prevalent in the Lower Mainland are infrastructure built on sandy deltas that could liquefy in minutes in the event of an earthquake. I don’t believe that our mitigation efforts are at all on par with Japan, and we would likely suffer greatly in the event of a super quake, let alone from a tsunami that could devastate Vancouver Island. We need to prepare more heavily for such an event, and ready ourselves individually so that we are not taken by surprise if and when this occurs.
Japan’s Future Japan has in its past displayed many innovative and technologically forward efforts in the field of earthquake mitigation. This is why the potentially devastating 9.0 earthquake on March 11th managed to cause much less damage than it could have without the proper mitigation already in place. What Japan had not accounted for was a 10 metre tsunami that would stand to bring down the celebration of successful earthquake mitigation with a giant wall of water. The country had not secured itself against such an event, and this is why so many thousands of people perished that day. To say that there is a silver lining in all of this seems insensitive, but true. As a result of the tsunami, the government is taking all steps necessary to make sure that what happened on March 11th will be the last time devastation and loss of life is a subsequent result of a tsunami. Of course, there is no way to prevent tsunamis from happening in the first place, but there are things that can done to make sure it doesn’t affect people in the same way that it did. I believe in this way that the future of Japan looks bright, and that a country this strong and supportive of its people can only move forward from here.

Reference List:

- Bressen, D. 2011. Historic earthquakes in Japan. History of Geology http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/03/historic-earthquakes-in-japan.html - Cyranoski, D. 2011. Japan’s tsunami warning system retreats. Nature http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110811/full/news.2011.477.html - Dengler, L. 2011. The Past Matters: Lessons From History and From Japan’s March 11 Earthquake and Tsunami. The Asia-Pacific Journal http://japanfocus.org/-Lori-Dengler/3542 - EERI Special Earthquake Report 2011. The March 11, 2011, Great East Japan (Tohoku) Earthquake and Tsunami: Societal Dimensions http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2011-03-11-sendai/files/2011/03/Japan-SocSci-Rpt-hirez-rev.pdf - Emrick, P. 2011. Silver Lining: Effective Hazard Mitigation Lessens Damage from Japanese Quake. Center for Health and Homeland Security, The University of Maryland http://www.mdchhs.com/blog/silver-lining-effective-hazard-mitigation-lessens-damage-japanese-quake - Ikeuchi, K. and Isago, N. 2007. Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Policy in Japan http://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/39/paper/42ikeuchi.pdf - Japan Meteorological Agency, 2012. What is an Earthquake Early Warning? http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/eew1.html - Knight, W. 2011. How Japan's Earthquake and Tsunami Warning Systems Work. Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26505/ - Maeda, R. and Tsukimori, O. 2012. Japanese firms considering geothermal plants in Fukushima http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-firms-considering-geothermal-plants-fukushima-120721568.html - Stanley, TA and Irving, RTA 2001. The 1923 Kanto Earthquake. http://web.archive.org/web/20070304070418/http://www.hku.hk/history/nakasendo/1923quke.htm - Strickland, E. 2011. Explainer: What Went Wrong in Japan's Nuclear Reactors. Tech Talk. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/explainer-what-went-wrong-in-japans-nuclear-reactors - Stoda, K. Has Japan done enough to Mitigate against Tsunamis? http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/has-japan-done-enough-to-mitigate-against-tsunamis/ - Tohill, J. 2011. Japan Turns Up The Heat On Geothermal Energy Following Fukushima. The 9 Billion http://www.the9billion.com/2011/07/22/japan-turns-up-the-heat-on-geothermal-energy-following-fukushima/ - 2012, The Daily Yomiuri Online, REVITALIZING JAPAN -- Building a disaster-resistant nation / Tsunami warning systems to be built in space, sea floor
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120202007018.htm