It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Japanese government will install a large scale tsunami monitoring system on the Pacific seabed to speed up it's warning process.
The education and science ministry plans to install an underwater cable near the Nippon Trench in the Pacific Ocean, seismometers on the seabed, and underwater tsunami detectors using hydraulic pressure sensors.
Seismometers and tsunami detectors will be installed by March 2013 in waters off the Boso Peninsula and the Sanriku Coast. The locations are north and south of the focus of the major earthquake that hit wide areas of northeastern Japan last year. Additional monitors will be put in place off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture and near the Nippon Trench, close to the focus of the 2011 earthquake.
A total of 150 locations will be positioned by March 2015.
Separately, the Meteorological Agency will install seismometers at 3 locations in waters about 400 kilometers off the northeastern coast some time this year. The data of the seismometers will be collected by satellites and will be used to detect a massive earthquake that is expected to occur east of the Nippon trench in the Pacific Ocean.
The data will help the Meteorological Agency release tsunami information or warnings.
Akira Nagai, the chief of the agency's tsunami monitoring division, said these systems will help the agency gather necessary data as they can monitor tsunami closer as they occur.
During the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Japan's Meteorological Agency was able to monitor tsunami waves before they reached the Japanese coast, because of underwater global positioning systems off northeastern Japan.
Monday, January 09, 2012 05:24 +0900 (JST)
Copyright NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) All rights reserved.
Magnitude 6.6 - SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
2012 January 09 04:07:17 UTC
This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
6.6 (Preliminary magnitude — update expected within 15 minutes)
Monday, January 09, 2012 at 04:07:17 UTC
Monday, January 09, 2012 at 03:07:17 PM at epicenter
49.6 km (30.8 miles) set by location program
SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
363 km (225 miles) E (93°) from Kira Kira, Solomon Islands
593 km (369 miles) ESE (103°) from HONIARA, Solomon Islands
1980 km (1230 miles) E (95°) from PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea
Error estimate not available
NST= 17, Nph=0, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0 sec, Gp= 86°,
M-type="moment" magnitude from initial P wave (tsuboi method) (Mi/Mwp), Version=B
NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
PTWC says no #tsunami alert following M6.6 earthquake in Solomon Islands.
Monday, January 09, 2012 at 03:43:33 UTC
Monday, January 09, 2012 at 03:43:33 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
36.5 km (22.7 miles)
172 km (106 miles) SE of NUKU`ALOFA, Tonga
377 km (234 miles) S of Neiafu, Tonga
525 km (326 miles) ESE of Ndoi Island, Fiji
1974 km (1226 miles) NE of Auckland, New Zealand
horizontal +/- 17.8 km (11.1 miles); depth +/- 10.2 km (6.3 miles)
NST= 70, Nph= 71, Dmin=895 km, Rmss=0.47 sec, Gp=101°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=7
Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Utah is earthquake country. Every year, seismologists at the University of Utah record around 800 quakes. Most of them aren’t strong enough to be felt, but a few times a year some community in Utah gets the luck of the draw to have a shaker that rattles them for a few seconds.
It’s just a reminder that most of the state’s population lives right next to a sleeping giant.
The Wasatch Fault has a major earthquake about every 350 years. The last one was 350 years ago.
When I say major earthquake, I’m talking about a 7.0 — something that would cause thousands of deaths and injuries, disruption to utilities, building collapse and ruined transportation. Initially, we would see chaos and destruction — a catastrophe.
So we plan, prepare and train while Mother Nature has given us time. You can, too.
On April 17 at 10:15 a.m., the state of Utah will hold the first statewide earthquake drill, the largest of its kind ever to be held in the state.
It’s called the Great Utah ShakeOut.
Originally posted by PuterMan
...isn't mostly correct....guesses wildly....has no system that is based on fact....depends on coincidence
Well (1) when you cite Chile, Mid-Atlantic ridge, Ecuador, New Zealand, Tonga etc as possible areas you are pretty darn sure to be right most of the time. It is bit like saying "there will be seismic events in California" or "tomorrow there will be an earthquake in the ring of fire". These people are all the same. I gave up proving the cali site wrong as it happened every day - got a bit boring really.
Now I am always happy to be proved wrong so if you can show the connections then I would be very happy to take a look, even if only because logically in an electric universe there should be some effect one might expect. I would also like someone to explain just how this can trigger earthquakes. Sorry but "OMG a CME! There will be a Mag 8" does not cut it. I need reasons why this might be.
I am not saying you have not seen this increase, but can you substantiate it? Unfortunately I do not have time to cover all the areas I would like to cover so it would be useful if someone else could keep track of these and see if there is in fact a connection. The person on YT is not researching anything. He just has a bee in his bonnet and depends on apparent synchronicity due to happenstance. In that video he admitted nothing occurred - with excuses.
No, it just bends the crust by up to 55mm twice a day. Do solar flares do that?
This has changed and there is the possibility of a large quake in the immediate future based on the pattern of the FE areas.
Based on the above I flag Santa Cruz as a red zone for a 7.5 to 7.8 in the next year.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
By contrast, megatsunamis are caused by giant landslides and other impact events. Underwater earthquakes or volcanic eruptions do not normally generate such large tsunamis, but landslides next to bodies of water resulting from earthquakes can, since they cause a massive amount of displacement.
Yes of course I am aware of Alaska and of Wikipedia's statement. Note first that Alaska did not produce a global tsunami, it was local.
As far as I am concerned Wikipedia has jumped on the doom wagon and what they are saying is in my opinion incorrect. (Now there's a surprise - Wikipedia may be wrong! )
I subscribe to the theory that massive landslides produce very large local tsunamis but do not have far reaching effects on a global scale.
You should have a read of Dr. GEORGE PARARAS-CARAYANNIS if you have not already done so.
With regard to this an ATS member commented to me:
I can tell you right off the bat what the problem with the original "mega-tsunami" theory was. It was based on dropping a pile of dirt into a tank full of water. And a smooth, rectangular, enclosed tank at that. Such a set-up is about as far from the reality of the situation as you can get while still managing to remain a convincing demonstration.
Puterman... you don't know who I am, but I would certainly endorse the speculation of George Pararas-Carayannis. His is certainly more founded than that of the people who decided dropping rocks at one end of a plexiglass tank was a good idea.
Consider the length of the fault slip that is involved in a mega-quake. We are talking,huge distances. Banda Aceh for example:
The earthquake ruptured a surface of at least 400 km long and 100km wide, with an average slip of 10-15 meters, and local maximum of 20-25 meters
Report on Banda Aceh mega-thrust earthquake, December 26, 2004
OK it is not going to be all of that but the basic maths 400 x 100 x 0.1 = 4,000 cu km. Sort of makes Cumbre Veija look a bit small.
The mechanism is also vastly different.
edit on 26/7/2011 by PuterMan because: Darn tags!
Edit to add:
re: Landslide != global tsunami maker
For those not into computer /maths speak != is not equal to. 'Landslide is not equal to global tsunami maker'
The statement is correctedit on 26/7/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)