7:20a ET: M5.5 hits off Fukushima coast — Intensity 4 of 7 — Under 50 miles from Daiichi

Published: April 12th, 2012 at 7:46 am ET


Title: Earthquake Information
Source: Japan Meteorological Agency
Date: April 12, 2012

20:20 JST 12 Apr 2012 Ibaraki-ken Oki M5.5 4

Published: April 12th, 2012 at 7:46 am ET


Related Posts

  1. 12:45p EST: M4.1 quake hits Fukushima — Strongest intensity registered in Futaba County, home of Daiichi plant (MAPS) January 12, 2012
  2. M5.3 hits Fukushima within hours of M4.8 — Level 4 of 7 on Japan intensity scale — M5.8 in Chiba February 29, 2012
  3. M4.3 quake hits Fukushima at 7:22a ET — Strongest intensity felt around nuke plant (MAP) January 26, 2012
  4. Powerful M5.2 quake hits off Fukushima — 4 of 7 on Japan intensity scale (MAP) March 25, 2012
  5. M4.3 quake hits near Fukushima within past hour — Strongest intensity felt at monitoring post 14km from plant January 24, 2012

11 comments to 7:20a ET: M5.5 hits off Fukushima coast — Intensity 4 of 7 — Under 50 miles from Daiichi

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

    Earthquake 12 April 20:19 JST
    MAP: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/140_35.php

    Magnitude5.3 Date-Time
    • Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 11:19:59 UTC
    • Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 08:19:59 PM at epicenter
    Location36.874°N, 141.060°E Depth14.3 km (8.9 miles) RegionNEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN Distances
    • 26 km (16 miles) SE (146°) from Iwaki, Honshu, Japan
    • 76 km (47 miles) NE (42°) from Mito, Honshu, Japan
    • 109 km (68 miles) SSE (151°) from Fukushima, Honshu, Japan
    • 178 km (111 miles) NE (41°) from TOKYO, Japan
    Location Uncertaintyhorizontal +/- 15.2 km (9.4 miles); depth +/- 6.5 km (4.0 miles)

  • Sickputer

    Never hurts to repost about the effects of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011. Often mentioned by the nuclear cabal as the minor cause of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster (the much more visible tsunami gets the lion share for blame). The nuclear industry wants the tsunami to get the blame because retrofitting hundreds of inland reactors to survive a big quake will cost trillions of dollars. Building a handful of higher tsunami walls (which they don't want to do either) is much less expensive.

    Experts can't examine the out of control wrecked units to establish primary blame because the radiation is far to deadly around the damaged reactor units. So it's a convenient excuse to allow the nuclear industry to claim the earthquake did little damage. They appear to have little interest in doing an indepth examination of the supposedly relatively unscathed Units 5 and 6 although we know Unit 6 is the most modern design at the complex and the other five are older models.

    The earthquake scientists provided data that the ground in central and northern Japan moved at least temporarily 12 to 15 feet during the earthquake and the ground subsided over two feet. At the epicenter of the earthquake in the ocean the lateral and vertical movement was much greater. Indeed the earth's axis was altered.

    The underground plumbing and the wall integrity of a structure that is affected by a 12 foot lateral movement will suffer severely even with the very thick walls of a…

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    See this? 14:44 4/12/2012, Coolant system of reactor 4 stopped. If you are in Japan, please prepare for evacuating just in case.

  • Sickputer

    …nuclear power plant. Yes, it was one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history. But the whole premise of safe nuclear energy is based on the inner core never being breached and spent fuel remaining safely stored. Regardless of tsunami or earthquake causes, that premise has now been shattered at Fukushima Daiichi. The resulting fallout is now as much political and economic as it is deadly poison in the environment.

    • Whoopie Whoopie

      I'm sorry sick. I busted up your comment. 🙁

      • Whoopie Whoopie

        Which is a good one. I esp like "regardless of tsunami or EQ" because your right, it doesn't matter which – these NPP's have been proven unsafe in any case. 🙁

    • Jebus Jebus

      And adding to your fine post SP, is the fact that #4 was shut down for refueling, most of the core was in the SFP. So even when these beasts are idle, during one of Mother Natures bad days, they have the potential to destroy all life around them, to say the least.
      They are in this vulnerable condition every 12 to 24 months.
      Is that a gamble that is acceptable to anyone?
      Have they really shown their positive worth to mankind?

    • dosdos dosdos

      Well, when it comes to public image and the nuclear industry, it matters a great deal. If it was only the tsunami to blame, all inland NPP's and those on the coast with adequate tsunami deflection walls or on protected coasts are considered safe to run. However, if the earthquake was the cause, none of them are safe to run. This is why the government and the nuclear industry is so emphatic in their studies that it was only the tsunami that caused the damage that brought on the crisis. The tsunami only explanation gives 60% of the reactors a green light to restart. That is a big difference.