From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 11, 2011.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 11, 2013, March 11, 2021, and March 11, 2023.


Wonky image problem

Testing here:

Energy map of the tsunami from NOAA

Lack of fuel caused the Fukushima Daiichi Nulcear Disaster?

The article currently (2023.11.3) states:

"The tsunami caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, primarily the meltdowns of three of its reactors, the discharge of radioactive water in Fukushima and the associated evacuation zones affecting hundreds of thousands of residents.[47][48] Many electrical generators ran out of fuel. The loss of electrical power halted cooling systems, causing heat to build up."

Say what? Is it not well accepted that the generators failed due to the damage caused from the tsunami, not due to their running out of fuel, or inability to refuel them. I can find thousands of references to the tsunami damage, not a single reference to lack of fuel. Can this claim be supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.166.151 ( talk) 23:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

Jimmynuetron121 (
talk) 16:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Add how nuclear waste was taken care of
reply
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Geology Map

In the geology section there is a two leaf map labeled, "Mechanism of 2011 Tohoku earthquake" Both panels make reference to "the North American Plate" sitting adjacent to this geographical section of Japan. I believe this is grossly incorrect, Japan does not sit on any piece of the North American Plate. Both map panels need serious revision. Astrophysicalchemist ( talk) 13:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree that it probably should have been labelled as the okhotsk microplate, however I don't think there is a consensus on whether it is fully its own thing. If someone has a similar graphic with better labelling then I would support its replacement, but I don't see the need for the current image's removal at the moment Vreee ( talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

it isn’t the fourth most powerful earthquake, its number 6 most powerful ever recorded. Timplin ( talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The article says it was the "fourth most powerful earthquake recorded in the world since modern seismography began in 1900" - this is correct, 2 of the more powerful quakes happened before this. Jamedeus ( talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

299%g should be XI, not VIII

I was quite shocked when I saw VIII here along with 2.99g of PGA. USGS Estimations state that PGAs that exceed 1.39g should be considered as X-XII. So a rough estimate of it would be around XI-XII. Waitwott ( talk) 07:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, the Ishikawa earthquake had 2.88 g of PGA, yet it is considered X-XI. So how come did 3.11 have VIII even with nearly 3g of acceleration? And also, please separate the intensities to their respective blocks, instead of putting its counterpart in parentheses/brackets. Waitwott ( talk) 07:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Ishikawa earthquake intensity was supported by a source [1]. The VIII intensity in this article is supported by the USGS event page impact summary. I haven't come across any credible source that suggests a different maximum Mercalli intensity. Interpreting the 2.99 g PGA would constitute WP:SYNTH. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 08:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply