iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bruce Parker

GET UPDATES FROM Bruce Parker
 

Why Did the 2011 Japan Tsunami Kill So Many People?

Posted: 03/11/2012 12:01 pm

[This question is answered in "The Unpredictable and the Unprepared," a new chapter added to the just-released paperback edition of The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves, and Our Quest to Predict Disasters by Bruce Parker, former chief scientist of the National Ocean Service in NOAA and presently a visiting professor at the Center for Maritime Systems, Steven Institute of Technology. In this post, Dr. Parker provides a short summary of the reasons why so many people died. You'll have to read his chapter for the very compelling personal stories that illustrate what Dr. Parker summarizes below. The rest of the book is also very compelling and the science is fascinating.]

That Japan was not adequately prepared for the tsunami that hit the northeastern Honshu coast on March 11, 2011, first became apparent at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. When the earthquake severed the connection between the nuclear power plant and the Japan electrical grid, the diesel backup system turned on as it was supposed to. This was critical, because those generators provided the electrical energy needed to continue the operation of the cooling system, without which there would be a nuclear meltdown. But the seawall in front of the power plant was not high enough to stop the tsunami, and the fuel tanks were washed away. Unbelievably those critical fuel tanks had been situated outside the buildings at ground level. Equally unbelievable, the diesel engines inside the buildings had also been placed at ground level and in the basement below, and the tsunami submerged them. (If the fuel tanks and diesel engines had simply been put on higher floors in the nuclear reactor buildings, which withstood the force of the tsunami, or the sea wall had been higher, there would have been no nuclear accident.)

But the fact that 25,000 Japanese were killed by the tsunami shows that the lack of preparation went well beyond just the nuclear power plants. So one has to ask the question, how could the tsunami have killed so many people in a country that was supposed to be the most tsunami-aware nation on Earth?

Part of the answer is that the Japanese had become complacent about tsunamis and over-confident about the measures supposedly in place to protect them. Although there had been many recent earthquakes, there had not been a deadly large tsunami since 1933. And people forget. In 1960 the tsunami from the Chilean earthquake that had crossed the Pacific and reached Japan killed 142 people. But since then there had only been false alarms, tsunami warnings broadcast but followed by no tsunamis of any significant size. And the fact that the Japanese had made very real progress in reducing deaths due to the frequent earthquakes (better building codes, etc) added further to their false sense of security about tsunamis.

The Japanese thought the sea walls would protect them. About 40 percent of the coast of Japan has sea walls, but unfortunately they had not been built high enough and they failed to protect the people on March 11. How high to build those walls had been a financial decision. It would have been much more expensive to build them high enough to handle a worst-case scenario, which the March 11 tsunami was, produced by a 9.0 earthquake, the fifth largest in modern history. (Of course, if there was one place where the highest and strongest sea wall should have been built, to handle a worse case scenario, no matter what the cost, it was around the nuclear reactors.) There is, however, very little cost associated with designating safe evacuation areas. Surprisingly, many of these supposedly safe evacuation areas were not located high enough and/or far enough inland, and many people who came to these evacuation areas died. Perhaps most important, however, many of the deaths were due to the fact that a large number of Japanese did not know what to do if a tsunami came. They had been trained in earthquake preparedness, but not in tsunami preparedness.

The tsunami struck in the middle of a sunny Friday afternoon at a time when thousands of parents were heading to schools to pick up their children. The stories of what happened at many elementary and junior high schools sadly provide tragic insights into the lack of preparation. However, there was one school district that was prepared, and how those children saved themselves because of their training is a very uplifting story. It is a story that demonstrates the critical importance of disaster preparedness in saving lives, especially for tsunamis, which are unpredictable. In the Kamaishi school district, only five children were lost out thousands (and those five had been at home when the tsunami struck).

In 2005 Professor Toshitaka Katada, a disaster social-engineering expert at Gunma University Graduate School, and his colleagues began giving emergency disaster lessons to students at elementary and junior high schools in the Kamaishi school district. They conducted disaster drills, but they also integrated tsunami awareness into almost all aspects of their school day. The goal of the program was to teach the students to save themselves. The story of how the students from Kamaishi-Higashi Junior High School and Unosumai Elementary School saved themselves during the tsunami provides a heartwarming illustration of the benefit of tsunami preparedness training. The tsunami swept over sea walls and engulfed both schools, yet every one of the 212 junior high students and 350 elementary students who were in the buildings at the time managed to escape.

And what about the tsunami warnings? How quickly were they issued, and how much time did the Japanese have to react? Tsunamis are unpredictable, because the submarine earthquakes that produce them are unpredictable. Also, most submarine earthquakes do not produce tsunamis, so to prevent false alarms an actual tsunami must first be detected (by a DART buoy or a real-time tide gauge) before a warning can be given. This works fine for warning people living along coast far from the epicenter of the submarine earthquake. (Tsunami models did an excellent job of predicting when the tsunami would hit Hawaii or California, hours after the earthquake.) But most deaths occur on the coast closest to the epicenter. On March 11, the very large size of the earthquake was recognized quickly (from the seismic data) and the Japanese Meteorological Agency fortunately took no chances and put out a tsunami warning three minutes later. Even so, it took only 29 minutes for the tsunami to reach the closest point on the Japanese coast.

With so little time to try to escape, tsunami preparedness becomes the most important thing in saving lives. Unfortunately, the response of many Japanese to that warning was inadequate due to their lack of tsunami preparedness training.

 
[This question is answered in "The Unpredictable and the Unprepared," a new chapter added to the just-released paperback edition of The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves, and Our Q...
[This question is answered in "The Unpredictable and the Unprepared," a new chapter added to the just-released paperback edition of The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, Rogue Waves, and Our Q...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mzrecycle
a very subtle micro-bio
07:41 AM on 03/12/2012
The reason the tsunami was so dangerous: the earthquake made the plate that land was on tuck UNDER several feet. That was the cause of the sea walls not being high enough. There was no way to predict that the land plate would be pushed down under the ocean plate.
07:13 AM on 03/12/2012
There were 9 waves total that came ashore. The sea walls, as the author says, were not high enough to protect the coastal towns. The first report stated that the tsunami was only 3.5m high. With 6m sea walls inmost places, many felt safe. The helos launched as observers told a significantly different story. Most were no aware of the multiple eaves coming ashore, so after the first one landed, many went back home to see what was left and were washed away.

Also, after the first wave spilled over the walls, it washed against the low mountains that are along the coast, thus being trapped between the land and the sea wall. This allowed the multiple waves to come ashore and the water in between to be sloshed around like in a bathtub. In those areas the water went 6m inland and the depth at some places was 129 ft.

In Kamaishi, they had a tsunami drill less than a week before the tsunamis hit. Overall, it was success, but it could not prepare them for what was to come.

50 years ago, the same thing happened to the Iwate coast. The Japanese thought what are the chances that the same thing could happen again? They had to wait for 50 years to get their answer.

I was in country, talked to hundred of people and lived on the coast helping the rebuilding effort. This is far from over. I can't wait to go back.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:07 AM on 03/12/2012
Mr. Parker makes two very important points:
1. Japanese planners placed supreme confidence in the sea-walls, even though their assumptions about the tsunami they might be facing were no more than informed guesses (not that the Corps of Engineers did any better in New Orleans). Japan has spent literally trillions of Yen on pouring concrete against natural disasters and all but destroyed its landscape and coastline in doing so. The insidious part is that pouring concrete is a mainstay of political patronage and corruption. Hopefully, the disaster will stop the mad dash to find ever more exotic reasons to pour more concrete.
2. Japanese as a society don't deal well with the unexpected, so constant drills are essential. Too often in my experience, it was assumed that at the time disaster struck all the individuals specially trained in disaster response would be at their post, have all their equipment with them, all communications would work and each individual would be able to react immediately. Remove just one part of the equation and the whole process simply stops, unless everyone has been through the drill so often they know what to do.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:21 AM on 03/12/2012
If Bruce Parker wants to speculate on the tsunami itself that is fine, but to speculate on the nuclear disaster is far too premature. Anyone that believes we dodged a bullet at Fukushima is horribly mistaken.

Sadly, much like Chernobyl, the full extent of environmental damage and affect on the human populace will not be realized for at least 10 or 20 years. The initial death toll from Chernobyl was reported as being quite low, but 25 years after Chernobyl the number of people dying from thyroid cancer continues, as does the legacy of children born with severe birth defects.
photo
Footwarrior
Progressive Apparatchik
05:54 PM on 03/12/2012
A reality check from the World Health Organization:

"Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting and not to radiation exposure."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
Kommonman
Blame it on Dyslexic fingers..next question
12:06 AM on 03/12/2012
Sorry guys there really is no preparing for the worst case scenario....You can plan all you want...protect all you want but when catastrophy of that magnitude comes along all any one can do is ride it out and hope for the best...Could things have been done better...sure but in the chaos that followed for what third or more of the coast line no govt can prepare or provide for everyone and to think otherwise is ludicris....Hind sight is 20/20 and the should of would of could of's are irrelvant at this point. Save what you can rebuild what you can and preapre the best you can for the next time...thats all any one person or any govt can ultimately do
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:10 AM on 03/12/2012
"Save what you can rebuild what you can and preapre the best you can for the next time...thats all any one person or any govt can ultimately do"

How can you do that if you don't look back with 20/20 hindsight and learn from the should of would of could of's??
Kommonman
Blame it on Dyslexic fingers..next question
11:12 AM on 03/12/2012
Never said you can not learn from the disaster..but all this armcahir quarterbacking after the fact and recriminations for a disaster that was so large of scale no amount of emergency preparedness could account for it. The japanese have one of the best disaster relief and preparedness systems on the planet...They actually drill for this sort of thing on regular basis as a society...everyone is involved and still they were over whelmed. A third of their coast line was effected or more...all of the infrastructure was affected all the emergency services in the area were effected leaving little in the way emergency workers aid the populace in the early aftermath....It was a catastrophy of eic proportions...Yet as usual recriminations for what was not able to be covered are tossed about by folks who really have no clue of what was involved other than what they saw on tv or some pundit expresses in the media. This was my point....But knowing the spirit of the people of Japan and their long history of disasters they will save what they can, rebuild what they can and prepare the best they can for the next one.
photo
phal4875
The world is run by cats; we just feed them.
06:22 PM on 03/13/2012
It appears that even in this worst case scenario, the people who were better trained in tsunami avoidance had a better survival rate. A worse case scenario still results in a survival rate that is either higher or lower, depending on quick individual action.
Kommonman
Blame it on Dyslexic fingers..next question
01:51 AM on 03/14/2012
True enough...tho in japanese society..especially along the coasts the citizens train regularly with eathquake and tusnami drills....they even have a national day for it...I doubt our own citizens here in the US would fair so well as with the short adhd attention span of the populace no one can be bothered
MHT73
words matter
11:27 PM on 03/11/2012
This sounds very familiar. The bottom line is that almost no one believed that the "near worst" case scenario could possibly happen. The exception seems to be the administrators of the elementary and jr. high schools that actually prepared their students. Kinda like the sea walls in New Orleans.

Japan was very lucky that this disaster wasn't compounded by a nuclear disaster. How well prepared are we?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 AM on 03/12/2012
Japan was very lucky that this disaster wasn't compounded by a nuclear disaster?? Apparently, you missed the news of the meltdown, or you buying into the government's report that all is well. It isn't!
MHT73
words matter
08:31 AM on 03/12/2012
You're absolutely right, and although I was initially very worried about a meltdown, I DID take a lot of assurance from the news that came out, and must have lost track of the updates.

I'll change that to lucky that this disaster wasn't much much worse, and that there were brave workers willing to try to contain it.

For today, sign me chagrined.
06:36 AM on 03/12/2012
The nuclear disaster happened within hours and will be ongoing for hundreds and possibly thousands of years.
MHT73
words matter
08:29 AM on 03/12/2012
You're right, as is the other person who replied to me, and I must have been completely asleep at the switch to have missed it. Thank you for pointing it out.

So, I'll change my comment - Do we think that our officials would be more up front with us?
O Really
What say You
10:41 PM on 03/11/2012
From the author ...

"But the fact that 25,000 Japanese were killed by the tsunami shows that the lack of preparation went well beyond just the nuclear power plants."

Not to make light of the toll in lives, but there seems to be a difference in the numbers with that of the official Japanese government..

"On 10 March 2012, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,854 deaths, 9,677 injured, and 3,155 people missing across eighteen prefectures, as well as 129,107 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 254,139 buildings 'half collapsed', and another 365,750 buildings partially damaged"..
10:46 PM on 03/12/2012
I thought the casualties were llight compared to what they could have been. They have the most advance defense sytem in the world. Look what happened i Thailand afew years back. japan had sea walls for this reason. If the earth had not dropped 3 feet they probalby would have been ok
06:31 PM on 03/11/2012
Parker - "Of course, if there was one place where the highest and strongest sea wall should have been built, to handle a worse case scenario, no matter what the cost, it was around the nuclear reactors."

Interesting logic. No one has died from radioactive releases and with the right measures in place no one is expected to receive a life altering dose; however, Mr. Parker suggests that protecting the nuclear plant should have been the highest priority over protecting actual people.

I would have kept the sea wall protecting the reactors that same and just made modifications so that if a large enough tsunami struck, backup power could be moved into position and installed with enough time to prevent core damage.
O Really
What say You
10:47 PM on 03/11/2012
The nuclear reactor plant was ill suited for that location...
Should have been further inland for a nation prone to tsunamis
Storm surges are unpredictable and no seawall can stop the forces of nature
unleashed by a 9.0 earthquake....at least not without enormous expense.

Shortsightedness and poor planning led to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant catastrophe..

They were lucky as you say.......No one has died from radioactive releases
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:26 AM on 03/12/2012
They build where the land is the cheapest. The coast of Fukushima has beaches, but it is not Malibu by any stretch.
08:34 AM on 03/12/2012
Lucky...maybe, but it had more to do with the defense in depth systems that even older plants have. The reactors were designed to prevent releases but if that failed then minimize the amount. Out of a hundred tons of fuel per reactor only a few kilograms of volatile fission products escaped.
06:38 AM on 03/12/2012
No matter if people had died from the nuclear reactor up to this point, we would NOT be told about it. And the question remains how many WILL die in coming years.
08:27 AM on 03/12/2012
There were people who perished at the reactors and we were told about it. Plant workers died when the tsunami hit and one pr two workers died from heart attacks because they weren't physically fit enough to work in protective clothing.

Any long term public health effects will most likely be too small to detect, especially because other risk factors associated with this natural disaster such the large fires and chemical spills.