Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Disaster in Japan, 11 March 2011

1,513 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Disaster in Japan, 11 March 2011

  1. 1. Disaster in Japan<br />11 March 2011<br />David Alexander<br />Global Risk Forum Davos<br />
  2. 2. 14:46 Friday 11 March 2011<br />Earthquake<br /><ul><li>epicentre: 130 km off coast
  3. 3. hypocentre: 24 km deep
  4. 4. magnitude: 9</li></ul>Tsunami<br /><ul><li>height:11.87 - 29.6 m
  5. 5. magnitude:3.6 to 4.9
  6. 6. 7 waves in 6 hours</li></li></ul><li><ul><li> tsunami warning available in 3 minutes
  7. 7. arrival time was 9-26 minutes
  8. 8. 443 km2 inundated
  9. 9. only vertical evacuation was feasible
  10. 10. old and infirm people most at risk?
  11. 11. r/c buildings safe, other structures not</li></li></ul><li><ul><li>14,517 confirmed dead
  12. 12. 11,432 missing
  13. 13. 78 bodies recovered in</li></ul> first three days of April<br /><ul><li> possibly 1000 bodies in the </li></ul> 20km nuclear exclusion zone<br />
  14. 14. In some instances, such as this case,<br />there was no one to rescue.<br />
  15. 15. 54 of 174 cities in four<br />prefectures affected (1/3)<br />
  16. 16. <ul><li> 16,950 homes and buildings destroyed</li></ul> and 138,000 damaged in 7 prefectures<br /><ul><li> 170,500 people in 2,230 evacuation</li></ul> centres in 17 prefectures<br /><ul><li> 70,409 families living in centres
  17. 17. 4000 schools damaged and</li></ul> 554 used as evacuation centres<br />
  18. 18. <ul><li> 30,000 transitional houses</li></ul> to be supplied in two months:<br /><ul><li> construction has started on 4,216</li></li></ul><li><ul><li> damage estimated at €216 billion</li></ul> ($309 billion) - more than twice the<br /> cost of 1995 Kobe earthquake (€92 bn)<br /><ul><li> insured property losses: 4.5-11.3%</li></li></ul><li>Fukushima Daiichi<br />Reactors 1, 2 and 3:-<br /><ul><li>damage to the cores from cooling problems
  19. 19. buildings holed by gas explosion
  20. 20. containment damage possible
  21. 21. radioactive water detected in reactor,</li></ul>basement and groundwater<br /><ul><li>leaking crack in containment pit of reactor no. 2</li></ul>Reactor 4:-<br /><ul><li>shut down prior to quake.
  22. 22. fires and explosion in spent fuel pond</li></ul>Reactors 5 and 6:-<br /><ul><li>reactors shut down.
  23. 23. temperature of spent fuel pools was very high.</li></li></ul><li><ul><li> safe limits exceeded 40 km away
  24. 24. radioactivity at plant 100,000 times usual level
  25. 25. radioactive iodine in the sea near</li></ul> the plant 4,385 times usual level<br /><ul><li> 70% of one reactor core severely</li></ul> damaged and 30% of another<br />Fukushima Daiichi<br />
  26. 26. <ul><li> 20-km radius: 70,000 long-term evacuees
  27. 27. 20-30 km radius: 136,000 residents</li></li></ul><li> The event:-<br /><ul><li> very intense, widespread destruction
  28. 28. permanent alteration of the coast
  29. 29. widespread post-earthquake fires
  30. 30. worst "Na-Tech" event for many years</li></li></ul><li> The response:-<br /><ul><li> quick, well organised response to tsunami
  31. 31. rapid accommodation of survivors
  32. 32. fast repair of infrastructure
  33. 33. very complex logistical problems, especially</li></ul> regarding fuel, water supply and sewerage<br /><ul><li> generally high level of resilience.</li></li></ul><li>The nuclear incident:-<br /><ul><li> poor public information management
  34. 34. evacuation policy inadequate?
  35. 35. long-term contamination?
  36. 36. lack of public trust in government.</li></li></ul><li>What size of event should we plan for?<br />Falling hazard<br />with diminishing<br />probability of<br />occurrence<br />Rising vulnerability<br />with increasing<br />seriousness of<br />potential<br />consequences<br />Vertical axis scales:<br />Hazard: probability of occurrence<br />Vulnerability: potential losses<br />Risk: value of probable costs and losses<br />Risk as product<br />of hazard and<br />vulnerability<br />Total annual<br />predicted costs<br />and losses<br />Severity<br />
  37. 37. What size of event should we plan for?<br />Total annual<br />predicted costs<br />and losses<br />Vertical axis scales:<br />Hazard: probability of occurrence<br />Vulnerability: potential losses<br />Risk: value of probable costs and losses<br />FAT-TAILEDDISTRIBUTION<br />Severity<br />
  38. 38. What relationship of this event to:-<br /><ul><li> Kobe earthquake, 17-1-1995 ?
  39. 39. Kantō (Tokyo) earthquake, 1-9-1923 ?
  40. 40. future Tokyo earthquake scenario ?</li></li></ul><li>Is this event a turning point<br />in world disaster risk reduction?<br />
  41. 41. What price redundancy:<br />what should we afford?<br />
  42. 42. Likely to be one of the fastest recoveries<br />to a major seismic event in recent history,<br />but that may not be true<br />of the nuclear incident.<br />
  43. 43. This was a true complex emergency:<br />what does that mean for preparedness?<br />
  44. 44. Will this event demonstrate the true<br />value of resilience in saving a country<br />from economic and social ruin?<br />
  45. 45. Will worse happen in Tokyo next time?<br />
  46. 46. Will the lessons of the Japanese<br />earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident<br />be taken to heart by decision makers<br />in other countries?<br />
  47. 47. Thank you for your attention.<br />david.alexander@grforum.org<br />

×