Giant earthquake has hit Japan

Heard from my friends in Japan and all is well. The one who lives about 80 miles away from Sendai had very minor damage to his house. He had been traveling at the time of the earthquake. His wife and child lost electricity and phone for a day and a half while he was in Korea. When they got it back he was flying into Osaka and trying to rent a car to drive up to his house as the railroads were still shut down. Took him a while and he was really worried. Needless to say answering emails from colleagues in America were not his highest priority. But he got them now.
 
Good on 'em Peggy. My employer (Polycom) also reported today that our employees (mostly in Tokyo) and families are all accounted for and safe, and utilizing our own tech to work from home if they wish. No one is in the office for the time being.

And our company match of employee donations to charitable organizations (there's a pretty generous annual cap) is always available to us. $500 instantly becomes $1000 if you fill out the simple paperwork.

So glad to hear our respective co-workers are doing relatively well.
 
Latest.
The employee contribution goal was set at $10,000. Employee contributions exceeded $24,000 within 24 hours of being setup, so the employee contribution goal (and subsequently the expected match) has been increased to $50,000.

If you would like to support AmeriCares®, you can donate at http://www.americares.org/.

If you are interested in supporting the Canadian Red Cross, you can donate at: http://www.redcross.ca.


Japan Earthquake update
As the rescue and relief efforts continue in Japan following the major earthquake and tsunami that struck the northeast area of Japan on March 11, we wanted to share with you the very latest information.



FUJIFILM Corporation has reported that no Fujifilm employees or their families were hurt by the natural disasters. Also, there is no damage at the Fujifilm headquarters, and the six main factories sustained only minimal damage.

Tokyo Electric Power Corp. has announced that rolling blackouts are expected to continue through April, which will slow down communication with our colleagues.


Public transportation is closed in many areas due to rolling black outs.

 
If you are a United/Continental flyer, they are offering up to 500 FF miles for donations to the US Red Cross. http://www.united.com/page/article/1,,53715,00.html
"To receive your miles, please send an email to japanmileagebonus@united.com including: an electronic receipt from the American Red Cross showing a donation of $50 or more, your name and Mileage Plus number."


You can also donate your miles if you like.
 
Interesting the cultural differences in metaphors used. The Japanese are far less squeamish about bodily functions than their western counterparts.
 
The previously-posted CNN link with the aerial footage gives a good "from above" view...

This one is a bit closer:


But this one shows the craziness of being low enough to get your feet wet, and gives some idea of the first-person experience:


Here's a Google Maps link where you can look around from Street View and see what it looked like before: http://goo.gl/maps/UENp
 
And, just to prove Shook's Law true (shouldn't it be EdFred's Law?) I have to post that Apple's reaction has been commendable:

I work at Apple at one of its stores in Japan. The earthquake hit while I was working on the first floor of one of their stores. As the entire building swayed, the staff calmly led people from the top 5 floors down to the first floor, and under the ridiculously strong wooden tables that hold up the display computers.
7 hours and 118 aftershocks later, the store was still open. Why? Because with the phone and train lines down, taxis stopped, and millions of people stuck in the Tokyo shopping district scared, with no access to television, hundreds of people were swarming into Apple stores to watch the news on USTREAM and contact their families via Twitter, Facebook, and email. The young did it on their mobile devices, while the old clustered around the macs. There were even some Android users there. (There are almost no free wifi spots in Japan besides Apple stores, so even Android users often come to the stores.)
You know how in disaster movies, people on the street gather around electronic shops that have TVs in the display windows so they can stay informed with what is going on? In this digital age, that's what the Tokyo Apple stores became. Staff brought out surge protectors and extension cords with 10s of iOS device adapters so people could charge their phones & pads and contact their loved ones. Even after we finally had to close 10pm, crowds of people huddled in front of our stores to use the wifi into the night, as it was still the only way to get access to the outside world.
Anyway, I mention this not because I work at Apple now, or because I'm an admitted fanboy, but because I'm genuinely proud of the Apple Japan staff and their willingness to stay open to help people that day. And I'm also impressed with the way Apple's products (and yes, Google's, Twitter's, and Facebook's) helped them that day. Even after we had to close, many of the staff stayed outside the store to fixing iphones and teaching people how to contact family or stay informed via wifi.

A quick list of kind things Apple did after we closed:

1. Because the trains and phones were down, almost everyone who worked in Tokyo was stranded deep in the city. All the hotels were booked, the roads were jammed, so hundreds of people were instantly homeless. Apple told all of their staff - Retail AND Corporate - that they could go sleep at the Apple stores. The Senior managers at the stores had been notified earlier and unbeknownst to us, had gone out to stock up on food and drinks after the very first quake hit.

This was a godsend because by 11pm (118 aftershocks later) all food and drinks were sold out at every store within walking distance. And when I say walking distance, I mean 3-4 hours of walking distance. (Tokyo is a big city.)

Letting not just Retail but corporate staff sleep at the Apple stores was genius because:

1a. The corporate offices are in skyscrapers with over 50 flights of stairs. With all elevators in Japan shutdown, this was a nightmare.

1b. The Retail stores were the only areas where WE controlled the buildings, from top to bottom, so we could monitor, fix, and maintain the back-up power, networks, and heating ourselves.

1c. Ubiquitous wifi and Facetime devices gave us a lifeline to our families and the rest of the world. Facetime turned out to be MUCH more stable than Skype (And I'm a Skype fanboy!)

1d. With theater rooms and breakrooms designed for 150+ people, the Apple stores were the most comfortable places to be and to sleep. Much more comfortable than sleeping on the street on a cold March night.

2. Once staff let their families know that they were not only safe but how comfortable we were (break room refridgerators stocked with food and drink, etc), family members began asking if they could stay at the Apple stores as well. Of course Apple said yes. One business team member's stranded mother walked 3.5 hours to be with her daughter at the store. When she arrived, the Apple store staff gave her a standing ovation ("Warm Welcome") like they do for customers during a new launch.

3. The head of Apple International HR and of Japan Retail happened to be in Japan that week. Both came and spent the night with us in the stores and told everyone that if anyone wanted to try their luck getting home on their own, Apple would pay for any food, drink, or transportation fees that that person incurred on the way. "Your safety is most important."

If, on their way home the staff member realized they couldn't make it, but they found an open hotel, Apple would pay for it. Since many people lived 2-3 hours away, this ended up meaning 11 hour walks home, $300 taxi fares, and $800 hotel rooms (only the luxury hotels had vacancies). Executives from Cupertino and London Facetimed with us, letting us know not to worry, they supported us, and that they would write off on it all.

4. We continued to open our doors to stranded people on the street fixing iphones, selling battery packs, or simply teaching people how to get streaming news on their smart-phones until 3am in the morning. ;)

And lastly, as I write this now 3 days later, even though the Japanese government says everything is fine, nuclear plants continue to explode. And we still haven't even gotten the 7pt aftershock that is predicted to come this week, nor the nuclear/acid rain that is predicted to fall within the next 3 days. I hate to say this, but things may only get worse before they get better.

I've been calling my girlfriend at work, asking her to come home, but because the Tokyo government hasn't said anything, her company won't let her leave. On the other hand, my manager at Apple called me to let me know that Apple will support any decision I make regarding leaving the country or the area, and that a job will still be waiting for me if I decide to come back.

http://kevinrose.com/blogg/2011/3/14/apples-role-in-japan-during-the-tohoku-earthquake.html
 
Good corporate citizens. Companies like this earn their success in many ways.
 
An interesting opinion on the nuclear issue.

In fact, the economic and safety problems associated with nuclear energy are not unrelated. Trying to avoid flukes like Fukushima Daiichi is remarkably costly. And trying to avoid those costs can lead to flukes.

hmmm, what did I say the other day about letting the market sort out all this nuclear stuff?
 
Could you be more specific? I would be interested in what mistruths or misinterpretations have been promulgated in the article I linked. My technical knowledge in this field is very limited.

I skimmed the article, but I wonder about a couple of things. Yes, plants are expensive, the article says or implies that cost is one reason we don't have more. But, part of the costs involved, at least in the past, is that each plant is basically a one-of-a-kind. Each had to go through a design and approval process that added time and $. If the next generation of plants were based on a standard design the first couple would be the really expensive ones, the others would (or should) be more cost effective. Other than the US gubment deciding that electrical generation is a "national emergency" or some other "national"-type of interest and then taking over, I think we will always have the utilities themselves having to deal one-at-a-time with all the regulations and environmental groups that slow things down. How much money have we poured into the sand over the last 10 years? That would have gone a long way towards building plants.

I also noticed the phrase "... the U.S. still lacks a plan for nuclear waste..." That's different from what I usually see, something like, "We still don't know how to get ride of the waste." This is solvable, it's mosty politics and not engineering, but it just needs someone to make it happen.
 
I read the article, and I didn't see anywhere that he said the problems either could or could not be solved.
 
An interesting opinion on the nuclear issue.

Telling me a nuclear plant cost triples to $10 billion doesn't tell me anything about its economic viability. That kind of writing is intended to sway people impressed by big numbers. It is indeed a "hit piece" because it doesn't compare options. (Not to mention the irrelevant inclusion of Karl Marx!) For example:

Does the article mention the capital and operating costs of coal power electric plants? Why not?
How about natural gas plants?

Frankly I expect sincere attempts at assessments to look more like this:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

Notwithstanding dated information, the above link actually tries to compare options. It also helps when making a case to provide sources for information so people can determine its veracity. "Show your work" doesn't just apply to academic homework, it applies to journalists too.
 
So how do we separate the unnecessary cost-inflating red tape from necessary safety regulations?
 
Telling me a nuclear plant cost triples to $10 billion doesn't tell me anything about its economic viability. That kind of writing is intended to sway people impressed by big numbers. It is indeed a "hit piece" because it doesn't compare options. (Not to mention the irrelevant inclusion of Karl Marx!) For example:

Does the article mention the capital and operating costs of coal power electric plants? Why not?
How about natural gas plants?

Frankly I expect sincere attempts at assessments to look more like this:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

Notwithstanding dated information, the above link actually tries to compare options. It also helps when making a case to provide sources for information so people can determine its veracity. "Show your work" doesn't just apply to academic homework, it applies to journalists too.

Your source is equally disingenuous, if not more so. Saying a cost is $X is factually truthful, if contextually disingenuous. Bogus cost comparisons are considerably less so.
 
Is this better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

Didn't go throuh it in great detail, but on whole, looked fairly comprhensive and "balanced". :dunno:

Gary

I was able to pick up specific mistruths from the former, not so much from Wiki, which I am beginning to trust quite a bit. I've seen studies suggesting an error rate less than academic media.

It is very hard to believe that investors would be so soured on it if the costs were similar to other forms of energy generation and there was money to be made. Sorry. Red tape is just part of the equation.
 
I was able to pick up specific mistruths from the former, not so much from Wiki, which I am beginning to trust quite a bit. I've seen studies suggesting an error rate less than academic media.

Depending on the suject some Wiki stuff is quite good, others - not so good.

It is very hard to believe that investors would be so soured on it if the costs were similar to other forms of energy generation and there was money to be made. Sorry. Red tape is just part of the equation.

Any major power source is expensive. Nuclear suffers from the "fear of the unknown". Most people really don't understand the basics of nuclear electrical generation or the true risks (and there are real risks). If one doesn't have the knowledge, it tends to create fear, whether justified or not.

Gary
 
BS does show up on Wikipedia, but it is often easy to spot. Since the people running the place started pushing people to cite their sources, it has become easier to filter out the BS.

I have also noticed that the greater the number of people who are interested in a given subject, the more likely it is for the article to contain verifiable information.

It certainly is an interesting exercise in "How do we know what's true and what isn't?"
 
Any major power source is expensive. Nuclear suffers from the "fear of the unknown". Most people really don't understand the basics of nuclear electrical generation or the true risks (and there are real risks). If one doesn't have the knowledge, it tends to create fear, whether justified or not.
I think the problem is that it seems that when there is a nuclear accident people seem unsure of how to contain it. Let's try this and hope it works. Of course this also happened with the Deepwater Horizon. They poked a hole in the earth then couldn't figure out how to stop the stuff from coming out. Oil is visible, though and not as worrisome to people as radiation.
 
It certainly is an interesting exercise in "How do we know what's true and what isn't?"

Ah Yes! The age old problem! But even harder than "what is fact, what is fiction" is separating out "what is perception". Really doesn't matter what the facts are, the perception is what's important.

Gary
 
I think the problem is that it seems that when there is a nuclear accident people seem unsure of how to contain it. Let's try this and hope it works. Of course this also happened with the Deepwater Horizon. They poked a hole in the earth then couldn't figure out how to stop the stuff from coming out. Oil is visible, though and not as worrisome to people as radiation.

I can buy that. So... which has caused greater environmental and/or human devistation?

Gary
 
Sure, we can play that game all day. Which was worse, Chernobyl or influenza? It's all about the perception of risk.
Of course it's all about perception. Ask people if they would rather see a truckload of oil or a truckload of nuclear waste spilled in their neighborhood and see what answers you get.
 
Sure, we can play that game all day. Which was worse, Chernobyl or influenza? It's all about the perception of risk.

Gary

Oil spills are way easier to clear up than radiation. Petroleum is far less toxic than most radioisotopes. Sorry, I honestly don't think its a game. Before Chernobyl I would have said oil. After, not so much. And Odin only knows what will wind up happening in Japan, especially if there's been a breach in containment. They don't have all that much land to begin with.
 
I think the problem is that it seems that when there is a nuclear accident people seem unsure of how to contain it. Let's try this and hope it works.

It seems that way - but it may just be because of the exceptional nature of some of the accidents. I haven't done my homework on TMI or Chernobyl so I won't comment on those, but at least in Japan they are dealing with a monumental natural disaster that wrecked a lot of the lines of defense that were designed into the system. Issues that have been trained for and designed for, probably never make the news.

Of course this also happened with the Deepwater Horizon. They poked a hole in the earth then couldn't figure out how to stop the stuff from coming out.

Another human/system failure that resulted in damage to the equipment necessary to shut off the flow.

Oil is visible, though and not as worrisome to people as radiation.
I think you are right on this. Tendency is to fear the unknown.

I guess it's all part of being human - you want to 'expand your horizons', simplify you life, add technology to make your life better/easier, but to do do that means you have to take a risk. So plan ahead, deal with the failures, learn, and move on. The alternative is to freeze in the dark.
 
Oil spills are way easier to clear up than radiation. Petroleum is far less toxic than most radioisotopes.

Ask that of BP or the folks along the Gulf coast.

Sorry, I honestly don't think its a game.

You are right, it's not a game. Trying to measure risks between different events is very hard to do.

Before Chernobyl I would have said oil. After, not so much. And Odin only knows what will wind up happening in Japan, especially if there's been a breach in containment. They don't have all that much land to begin with.

Coal as an energy source is, overall, pretty risky when the whole chain is factored in. Oil much less, but as the number of large spills mount, the environmental damage is pretty substancial. Don't get me wrong, nuclear has it's problems as well, and the potential is there. Given the choice of living next to an oil refinery/coal plant or nuc plant, I'd choose the nuc.

Gary
 
Ah Yes! The age old problem! But even harder than "what is fact, what is fiction" is separating out "what is perception". Really doesn't matter what the facts are, the perception is what's important.

Gary

That may be true for politicians, but we engineers have to make stuff work in the real world, so we necessarily have an attachment to finding out what the facts really are.
 
Back
Top