[ExI] THE END for nuclear power (tsunami height)
jrd1415 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 19:24:17 UTC 2011
So now we have more, better info on which to base our analysis. Do we
build a 50 foot high dike. a 75 foot high dike, a 100 foot high dike,
or move the city?
If the city is already swept away, like for instance Sendai, then hey,
you've got to rebuild the city anyway so, yes, move up-slope, and use
the lowland as appropriate, like say, for agriculture.
For anything intact and in place like Tokyo, you just do a cost
benefit analysis, and then do what you need to do.
By the way, does anyone know the wave profile at the shore and the
duration of the elevated wave?
Best Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nearly 24 meters, and that was far from the record.
> "A tsunami wave that hit a coastal city in Iwate Prefecture after the
> March 11 massive earthquake is estimated to have reached 23.6 meters
> in height, a government-commissioned field survey by the Port and
> Airport Research Institute showed Wednesday," Kyodo News reports.
> That's 77 feet, 5 inches. Or, about the height of a six- or
> seven-story building.
> It wasn't a record, though. Kyodo says that:
> "The tsunami wave measured in the city of Ofunato was lower than the
> domestic record of 38.2 meters [125 feet. 4 inches] marked in the 1896
> Meiji Sanriku Earthquake Tsunami, and 34.9 meters [114 feet, 6 inches]
> logged in the wake of the 2004 earthquake off the Indonesian coast of
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat