I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.

I am not sure if the water was that tall, maybe its just that it was built like a low angled speed bump instead, and the water carried momentum.

Time to get to work on that 15m high wall.

I think Blue Oyster Cult said it best...

"History shows again and again, how nature points out the folly of men..."

Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:

I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.

>> ^Morganth:

Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.



And where is safe?

*water

Adding video to channels (Water) - requested by ant.

Maybe I'm not seeing the whole thing, but the shape of the outer wall seems like it would funnel the water down to the middle, which would have the effect making the wave taller at that point.

I was wondering what city that footage was from at about 1:30 in this vid. That's some of the most terrifying I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3YiPC91QUk

Thus solving the problem, once and for all.


ONCE AND FOR ALL!
>> ^MaxWilder:

Time to get to work on that 15m high wall.

From the opening footage, it seems like they've built all their houses in the valleys between the mountains. I have to wonder why they don't build on the mountains instead? Isn't high ground the best tsunami defense?

>> ^gwiz665:

Thus solving the problem, once and for all.

ONCE AND FOR ALL!
>> ^MaxWilder:
Time to get to work on that 15m high wall.



The height reached depends on the type of obstruction. I'd look at a video of the tsunami hitting a vertical cliff to see how high the barrier should have been.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Morganth:
Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.


And where is safe?


Higher in the mountains behind the town.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Morganth:
Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.


And where is safe?


Ohio.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Morganth:
Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.


And where is safe?

Ohio.


Uh, blizzards? Severe cold temperatures?

All security & defenses has flaws. Just because it doesn't work 1% of the time isn't a reason not to do it.

This was the 5th largest earthquake ever recorded. I wouldn't rule out anti-Tsunami walls based on this failing (assuming Tsunami strength corresponds to earthquake size, which I gather it generally does, although there are other factors).

>> ^EMPIRE:

I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.


#1 I seriously doubt you have the education background to make such a call

#2 the whole point of rebuilding the town originally was to test new town construction techniques. Obviously it didn't go as planned.. doesn't mean you quit now. When a building is built to become earthquake proof and an earthquake levels it, you don't go "Aww geez! Well thats it... no more buildings!"

>> ^ant:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^ant:
>> ^Morganth:
Japan isn't exactly booming with space...
>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.


And where is safe?

Ohio.

Uh, blizzards? Severe cold temperatures?


Yeah but, when's the last time you heard of a blizzard destroying a town? You can SHOVEL snow. Hell, you can even build shelters out of it. All you can do with water is drown.

I wasn't exactly saying that based on engineering principles, but out of common sense. The town was destroyed 3 times in 100 years by natural events. That's not exactly a good number.

Oh of course. Let's not quit now. Let's wait for the next tsunami to fuck them up and kill another few thousand people. I mean... what's a human life worth against trying to build a different kind of wall.
Are you for real? It would be MUCH easier, MUCH safer, and in the long run MUCH cheaper to just move the town a little higher up. There ARE hills all around town. Having to walk an extra mile to get to the ocean but making sure your house isn't going to get dragged away by a tsunami is a pretty cheap price to pay.

Edit: I don't mean they shouldn't try to build a new, higher wall. They can still do that, as it would be important for research. Just don't build the houses in the danger zone.

>> ^jmd:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I hope they DO NOT try to rebuild this town. It's obviously built in a bad place, and the walls did absolutely nothing, so it really isn't worth it. Just move someplace safer please.

#1 I seriously doubt you have the education background to make such a call
#2 the whole point of rebuilding the town originally was to test new town construction techniques. Obviously it didn't go as planned.. doesn't mean you quit now. When a building is built to become earthquake proof and an earthquake levels it, you don't go "Aww geez! Well thats it... no more buildings!"

It's a bay right next to a fault line where the surrounding fjords will focus any incoming tsunami onto them. They could easily rebuild up in the hills instead of down in the most vulnerable area.

Although it was 10m high, it wasn't 10m above sea level when the tsunami hit because the earthquake made the land drop/subside.

>> ^alizarin:

Although it was 10m high, it wasn't 10m above sea level when the tsunami hit because the earthquake made the land drop/subside.


The subsiding plate was not on Japan's side. According to the experts, Japan's plate popped up when the Pacific plate subsided, causing the magnitude 9.0 and the tsunami. So, if you want to split hairs, it'd probably be more accurate to say the 10m wall might have been even higher.

That was according to National Geographic Explorer - they had an hour long show on the tsunami and spent 5 minutes or so explaining why that wall failed. Decide what you will.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^alizarin:
Although it was 10m high, it wasn't 10m above sea level when the tsunami hit because the earthquake made the land drop/subside.

The subsiding plate was not on Japan's side. According to the experts, Japan's plate popped up when the Pacific plate subsided, causing the magnitude 9.0 and the tsunami. So, if you want to split hairs, it'd probably be more accurate to say the 10m wall might have been even higher.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.