• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,541
I recently watched a documentary about the Fukashima nuclear disaster, in the documentary they mentioned that they were concerned about the possibility of an event that would force the evacuation of toyko and force it into an exclusion zone if certain events had unfolded at the reactors. I'm trying to wrap my head around how catastrophic an event this would be not just for the people of Japan, but the world at large.

Would it be the type of thing that causes the worlds economy to collapse overnight? Is it even possible to evacuate a city with that many people in it?
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,969
Massive economic implications, millions of displaced people, huge refugee crisis

It would be pretty fucking catastrophic
 
Oct 30, 2017
13,143
Your Imagination
Many many people (including me most likely) would have chosen not to leave. High fatalities recorded. Economic collapse likely. That being said, the capital has moved before so it's not impossible that it couldn't again.
 

Sacrilicious

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,312
Many many people (including me most likely) would have chosen not to leave. High fatalities recorded. Economic collapse likely. That being said, the capital has moved before so it's not impossible that it couldn't again.

The issue isn't so much that the capital would move, plenty of nations have capitals that are small and economically unremarkable.

It's that the Tokyo metro area is the largest megacity in the world and, in addition to the enormous population that would be directly affected, it plays a key role in the economy of Japan and the world in general. Something like this would have been absolutely catastrophic.
 
OP
OP
ArkhamFantasy

ArkhamFantasy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,541
Immediate red flags when a documentary about Fukushima cover image is an oil refinery.

Lol, i didn't even notice that. I despise thumb nails.


But It has interviews from the workers at Fukashima and the people in charge of the energy company, alot of footage inside the plant and helpful illustrations explaining what's going on inside the reactors.
 

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,913
Immediate red flags when a documentary about Fukushima cover image is an oil refinery.

The actual documentary is a PBS/NOVA one called Nuclear Meltdown Disaster.

Just whoever's uploaded it to YouTube that's terrible. Crediting it to BBC, calling it a different name and having the hashtags #clinton and #revealed on it for some reason :p
 

grand

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,894
It would've had worldwide and decades long repercussions to the same level that 9/11 had.
 

Futureman

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,397
I was in Japan late last year so this doc is interesting to me. Will try to watch... it's legit good?

to be clear, Tokyo is 140 miles from the power plant... was there a fear that Fukushima could have potentially been so catastrophic that it would have affected Tokyo? Or is this just more of a hypothetical... "What if there was a nuclear reactor meltdown in Tokyo"??
 

Spenny

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,541
San Diego-ish
The actual documentary is a PBS/NOVA one called Nuclear Meltdown Disaster.

Just whoever's uploaded it to YouTube that's terrible. Crediting it to BBC, calling it a different name and having the hashtags #clinton and #revealed on it for some reason :p
Ah. I stopped watching NOVA about four years ago. David Koch became its prime benefactor in the early 2010s and they stopped doing documentaries on climate change. I wonder if they've righted that wrong yet?
 

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,913
to be clear, Tokyo is 140 miles from the power plant... was there a fear that Fukushima could have potentially been so catastrophic that it would have affected Tokyo?

Yes:

Japan's prime minister at the time of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami has revealed that the country came within a "paper-thin margin" of a nuclear disaster requiring the evacuation of 50 million people.

He said he considered evacuating the capital, Tokyo, along with all other areas within 160 miles of the plant, and declaring martial law.

"From the 16th to the 20th we were able to halt the spread of radiation but the margin left for us was paper-thin. If the [fuel rods] had burnt through [in] all six reactors, that would definitely have affected Tokyo.
 

Deleted member 26398

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
706
"Urban" Japan is 100 million people. Also suddenly devastating the 3rd largest economy on earth would affect everyone pretty dramatically.
I mean it doesn't have fallout for people who are not directly affected. Japanese economy doesn't have that much influence on the global economy. Yes it is big but imports/exports are small compared to its own economy and countries like Germany, China and US. There are not many products that can only be manufactured in Japan and Japan is not a huge export market for any other large economy.
We are still talking about 20+ million people being displaced. This would affect the world considering the economic standing Japan has and the humanitarian aid needed for such a crisis.
The humanitarian aid would be chump change for other economies. Let's say other countries donate 1 trillion dollars over 5 years (no way its that large and it'll probably be loans and not donations) it's less than 0.3 percent of the world economy.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,450
Without wanting to put a downer on things I thought Tokyo was worryingly referred as 'The City waiting to die' given its location on 2 or 3 (?) major fault lines? Can't remember where I read that, but the implication was that it's only a matter if time before a massive earthquake irrevocably levels the place.
 

bananas

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,852
I'd argue much bigger because 9/11 was ultimately a single building not an entire fucking city
lY07jUv.jpg
 

tadaima

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,843
Tokyo, Japan
Clearly people in this thread are unfamiliar with Japanese construction turnover.

The new city would be built and ready to go precisely 1 week later.
 

Krabardaf

Member
Jun 12, 2019
36
Without wanting to put a downer on things I thought Tokyo was worryingly referred as 'The City waiting to die' given its location on 2 or 3 (?) major fault lines? Can't remember where I read that, but the implication was that it's only a matter if time before a massive earthquake irrevocably levels the place.
Modern day Tokyo will never be leveled by a quake. It could suffer immense damage, service disruption and likely thousands of casualties(out of roughly 40M people), but complete destruction is just fear mongering IMHO.
 

TDLink

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,411
It would be a catastrophe, and affect the country and its standing for a couple decades, but my guess is they would bounce back fairly quickly. Just look at how Hiroshima and Nagasaki bounced back. Or northern Japan after the awful Tsunamis. They would persevere. Probably the Kyoto/Osaka/Nara/Kobe area would merge and become a new mega-city/capital in that scenario until the area was safe to repopulate.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,450
Modern day Tokyo will never be leveled by a quake. It could suffer immense damage, service disruption and likely thousands of casualties(out of roughly 40M people), but complete destruction is just fear mongering IMHO.

Yeah, I can't recall the source, it might have been well out of date. I know the earthquake tech on Japanese buildings is amazing these days.

Anyway, none of it will matter when Yellowstone blows or that asteroid we don't know about arrives at 60,000mph out of a clear blue sky. Doomsday scenarios are fascinating and terrifying.
 

FF Seraphim

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,684
Tokyo
The humanitarian aid would be chump change for other economies. Let's say other countries donate 1 trillion dollars over 5 years (no way its that large and it'll probably be loans and not donations) it's less than 0.3 percent of the world economy.

Going to need more then money to deal with the displaced people. The greater Tokyo area has more people in it than Australia. You cannot just relocate them throughout of Japan there is no space for that many.
 

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,913
Yeah, I can't recall the source, it might have been well out of date. I know the earthquake tech on Japanese buildings is amazing these days.

You could check out this Guardian article from last week:
www.theguardian.com

'This is not a "what if" story': Tokyo braces for the earthquake of a century

They call it X Day – a major earthquake striking the heart of the world’s most populous city in the most calamitous event since the second world war. Can hi-tech solutions save Tokyo?


Of course... Not helping is companies falsifying test data of shock absorbers...
 

tadaima

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,843
Tokyo, Japan
Without wanting to put a downer on things I thought Tokyo was worryingly referred as 'The City waiting to die' given its location on 2 or 3 (?) major fault lines? Can't remember where I read that, but the implication was that it's only a matter if time before a massive earthquake irrevocably levels the place.
Japanese buildings are some of the most resilient in the world.

Tokyo hasn't been rocked by a devastating earthquake for some time (almost 100 years), during which time the technology has been substantially improved and tested by smaller quakes as well as the tremors of those from other prefectures.

However, other parts of the country have been hit by tragic earthquakes. But most of the fatalities of earthquakes in Japan come not buildings from collapsing, but the after effects such as landslides and tsunamis.

Focusing on the buildings – think back to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It was the third or fourth strongest earthquake in recorded history. Do you remember seeing the incoming tsunami? Almost all buildings were still standing, despite having been shook by a magnitude 9.1 earthquake just minutes prior. Many of these buildings would have been much older and less up-to-code than your average Tokyo building.

Due to Tokyo's topology and location, the city is less likely to be affected by either landslides or tsunamis, especially when compared to neighbouring prefectures. The reclaimed land of areas such as Odaiba may be the most vulnerable. But these locations are not as densely built-up or as populated as others (the cheap land is mostly used for refineries, storage, cargo, attractions, etc)

Not to mention, Japan has a very advanced earthquake detection system which provides precious seconds for citizens to switch off the gas, duck and cover, or jump out of an elevator (the exact latter having happened to me during a magnitude 5.0 quake just under a month ago).

Still, a magnitude 9.1 earthquake repeated in Tokyo would not be without significant structural damage. We likely would see some of the older buildings collapsing. Railways and roads will need rebuilding. But it would not be as tragic as an earthquake in a city elsewhere in the world (looking at you, Californian cities).
 

cvxfreak

DINO CRISIS SUX
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
945
Tokyo
I mean it doesn't have fallout for people who are not directly affected. Japanese economy doesn't have that much influence on the global economy. Yes it is big but imports/exports are small compared to its own economy and countries like Germany, China and US. There are not many products that can only be manufactured in Japan and Japan is not a huge export market for any other large economy.

Japan's economic influence goes way beyond just what it manufactures, imports and exports. Japanese investments in global assets are gigantic. Should a natural disaster greater than 3/11 occur, any sudden unwinding would destabilize global markets on a scale potentially magnitudes greater than seen in the fall of Lehman. A milder version of this actually happened in the days following 3/11, when the Yen shot up to historic highs and the US and Europe needed to intervene to avert a disaster.

Should Japan be taken out of the equation, everyone will be in a world of hurt. People were worried about Greece just a few years ago; Japan would be catastrophic by comparison.