Japan shook with 8.8 Quake and Hit By Tsunami

BlueFox

At this time it is unwise to believe anybody, or any group. As events unfold, so will the facts.

george daniel

Thank you sir,,BTW--welcome to club polk--I'm gonna' go to bed and sleep soundly now-- on your word
Goodnight all

megasat16

Thanks JustinHemi! I understand what you explaining here.

But it's not out of the water yet. Literally, sea water and quake to be exact. I know the nukes reactors are safely shut down but the problem is with the backup cooling system not fully functioning for the contingency plan.

As this point in time, as a person with firm profession in this field, what are the chances of the reactor meltdown due to overheating and containment field failure coz people are

1. working under extreme stress
2. failure of equipments or inadequate tools to prevent from overheating
3. additional earthquake or aftershocks

But under any circumstances, I think the Japanese evacuate people from 12 miles radius is a good strategy.

On a side note, Yahoo just (blindly?) reported that the partial meltdown might already been started.

JustinHEMI

megasat16 wrote: »

Thanks JustinHemi! I understand what you explaining here.

But it's not out of the water yet. Literally, sea water and quake to be exact. I know the nukes reactors are safely shut down but the problem is with the backup cooling system not fully functioning for the contingency plan.

As this point in time, as a person with firm profession in this field, what are the chances of the reactor meltdown due to overheating and containment field failure coz people are

1. working under extreme stress
2. failure of equipments or inadequate tools to prevent from overheating
3. additional earthquake or aftershooks

You are quite right, the after shocks could further knock out systems and equipment. However, as per their latest press release, they still have adequate core cooling. As long as water covers the core, the fuel can be cooled by steam flow.

As far as their personnel goes, that is a tough situation. I hope they have several crews in to switch out so that no one individual is spending too much time combating the scenario. If this were in the USA, at least 2 operating crews would be on site, with the rest protected safely off site to come in and relieve.

There are a lot of things that need to be lost to lead to a total meltdown. I do not foresee that happening.

One last thing to keep in mind, is that every minute that goes by, the decay generated gets less and less, exponentially.

An informed poster earlier commented that after a shutdown from 100%, a reactor will still generate 7% heat from decay. This is true, but it quickly dies to less than 1% within an hour. So, we are well past that point now.

Justin

megasat16

JustinHEMI wrote: »

It is a serious situation, for sure, but you can rest assured that you won't have fuel in your cereal in the morning.

Nor do you need to worry about a US plant. By all indications, US operators are far better trained than they were. At least, that is what my colleagues and I are debating.

Simply put, if they truly had all the systems they reported having in that status update, there is absolutely no reason they should have damaged any fuel. Therefore, I am led to believe that operator knowledge and ability, or lack thereof, contributed to the degrading conditions.

Justin

I think you can safely say the above and I would 100% agree with you under normal circumstances.

But the current situation in Japan is unlike anything we've ever heard or dealt with before. Therefore, it might have been extreme end of any kind of contingency plans ever put into place for the nuke power plant.

What are your thoughts that we might be able to deal with our reactors better than Japanese under these extreme circumstances?

gudnoyez

I some how think that the Media strives off of over reporting on others misfortunes, from what i've seen it is devistating and prayers and thoughts go out to everyone involved in this. I hope the media will respect the people that were involved in this and not over do it on the sake of the ratings they will acheive.

JustinHEMI

megasat16 wrote: »

I think you can safely say the above and I would 100% agree with you under normal circumstances.

But the current situation in Japan is unlike anything we've ever heard or dealt with before. Therefore, it might have been extreme end of any kind of contingency plans ever put into place for the nuke power plant.

What are your thoughts that we might be able to deal with our reactors better than Japanese under these extreme circumstances?

That is why I said we were debating, because an 8.9 quake changes everything.

These plants are designed to survive "credible" accidents, including a jet liner smashing into them. However, 8.9 isn't considered "credible" due to the low statistical probability of one occurring. I am speaking for the US only right now, but I would hope that a place like Japan would plan for higher, but I don't know. I don't know what the Japanese equivalent of the NRC requires, and I am hoping we get some more technical details about what sort of systems and protections they require.

In the USA though, the seismic history of a potential reactor site is studied, and all plants are reinforced to protect key systems up to about and 8 magnitude quake. There are a couple of plants near fault zones though, like San Onofre in California, and they are further reinforced since they sit right near a fault.

As far as our emergency procedures go, they are very well laid out and very scripted. They are symptom based, meaning and operator only needs to take action based on what they plant is telling him. They do not require guessing or gut feelings. They are laid out like a flow chart that the senior operator (me, for example) can easily navigate and direct the crew as needed. In addition to the control room crew, we would staff up a "technical support center," or TSC for short, that consists of the highest levels of plant management, and reactor engineers and many other support personnel. They provide data and support to the control room crew.

On top of that, the corporate owner staffs an off site center similar to above, along with the NRC. There is a data system in each control room in the USA that immediately transmits data to the NRC in the event of an accident.

In short, we get all the help in the world.

From what I am seeing here, that may not necessarily be the case in Japan. They may not have procedures as robust as ours. We have groups of people dedicated to constantly reviewing and updating our procedures. Again though, I am not sure the robustness of the Japanese regulator and I recognize that an earth quake that you don't plan for could also change everything.

One more note about US operators. They all go through an 18 months training course, which consists of intense classroom training followed by 9 months of hard training in the simulator. Then, if they pass the NRC exam and get their license (only about 50% of applicants make it), they are then re-examined every 5 weeks with both a written and simulator exam. Once a year, the NRC comes back to examine us.

So, we are heavily scrutinized all the time. In training, if you make a mistake in the simulator, you are pulled off the unit until you undergo additional training. If you are still unsuccessful, you lose your license.

These are the things that were a result of TMI.

I am sorry for being wordy, I just like educating the public about the workings of US nuclear power, since we as an industry do a crappy job at it.

Justin

Tony M

Keiko wrote: »

All is well here, thanks. Had a manini swell of about 4ft. We are fortunate to have dodged another bullet. I really feel for those folks over in Japan. Those images are horrible and only convey a small part of the devastation.

With everything that's going on in the world today, I'm beginning to wonder if the Prophecy, Mayans and Nostradamus may have been correct. Seems to be an escalation of violence and catastrophes more than ever these days. :frown:

I'm glad to hear that Mike.

Yes, I agree the images I've just seen just now are blowing my mind. Such devestation.

People are surely in dire straights and lives will surely be lost due to matters of water and food. God they are in trouble.

Makes my petty problems dissapear in comparison.

going to watch more on this. God bless you Mike.

megasat16

JustinHEMI wrote: »

You are quite right, the after shocks could further knock out systems and equipment. However, as per their latest press release, they still have adequate core cooling. As long as water covers the core, the fuel can be cooled by steam flow.

As far as their personnel goes, that is a tough situation. I hope they have several crews in to switch out so that no one individual is spending too much time combating the scenario. If this were in the USA, at least 2 operating crews would be on site, with the rest protected safely off site to come in and relieve.

There are a lot of things that need to be lost to lead to a total meltdown. I do not foresee that happening.

One last thing to keep in mind, is that every minute that goes by, the decay generated gets less and less, exponentially.

An informed poster earlier commented that after a shutdown from 100%, a reactor will still generate 7% heat from decay. This is true, but it quickly dies to less than 1% within an hour. So, we are well past that point now.

Justin

Great info, Justin! Thanks again. If the core is taken offline and they can spray enough water to cool of the remaining heat, I guess they should be able to avoid the core breach unless another dramatic quake happens which would jeopardize the structure of reactor.

One possibility under the situation is that I think there is a possibility that the sensors are not 100% accurate or taken offline by the quake and water if the core temperature is unsustainable which might be the case of the partial meltdown.

JustinHEMI wrote: »

That is why I said we were debating, because an 8.9 quake changes everything.

These plants are designed to survive "credible" accidents, including a jet liner smashing into them. However, 8.9 isn't considered "credible" due to the low statistical probability of one occurring. I am speaking for the US only right now, but I would hope that a place like Japan would plan for higher, but I don't know. I don't know what the Japanese equivalent of the NRC requires, and I am hoping we get some more technical details about what sort of systems and protections they require.

In the USA though, the seismic history of a potential reactor site is studied, and all plants are reinforced to protect key systems up to about and 8 magnitude quake. There are a couple of plants near fault zones though, like San Onofre in California, and they are further reinforced since they sit right near a fault.

As far as our emergency procedures go, they are very well laid out and very scripted. They are symptom based, meaning and operator only needs to take action based on what they plant is telling him. They do not require guessing or gut feelings. They are laid out like a flow chart that the senior operator (me, for example) can easily navigate and direct the crew as needed. In addition to the control room crew, we would staff up a "technical support center," or TSC for short, that consists of the highest levels of plant management, and reactor engineers and many other support personnel. They provide data and support to the control room crew.

On top of that, the corporate owner staffs an off site center similar to above, along with the NRC. There is a data system in each control room in the USA that immediately transmits data to the NRC in the event of an accident.

In short, we get all the help in the world.

From what I am seeing here, that may not necessarily be the case in Japan. They may not have procedures as robust as ours. We have groups of people dedicated to constantly reviewing and updating our procedures. Again though, I am not sure the robustness of the Japanese regulator and I recognize that an earth quake that you don't plan for could also change everything.

One more note about US operators. They all go through an 18 months training course, which consists of intense classroom training followed by 9 months of hard training in the simulator. Then, if they pass the NRC exam and get their license (only about 50% of applicants make it), they are then re-examined every 5 weeks with both a written and simulator exam. Once a year, the NRC comes back to examine us.

So, we are heavily scrutinized all the time. In training, if you make a mistake in the simulator, you are pulled off the unit until you undergo additional training. If you are still unsuccessful, you lose your license.

These are the things that were a result of TMI.

I am sorry for being wordy, I just like educating the public about the workings of US nuclear power, since we as an industry do a crappy job at it.

Justin

Whatever you guys are debating, it's the right thing. We need to consider any possible doomsday scenario and getting pumped up for any corrective plans.

And knowing the requirements of very high standards to become a crew in one of these power plants assures me I can sleep better at night.

Thanks and you need to stick around. I don't mind reading pages long reply on this topics.

I just hope the problem in Japanese reactors are not out of hands for them.

JustinHEMI

Here is a closeup of the blown out secondary containment.




As scary as that is, one thing to keep in mind is that primary containment is intact and it looks like they have some power back on site so even if there is fuel damage, or some melting, it can be contained in primary containment.

Also, for those so inclined, here is some good basic info from the NRC about these types of reactor plants. Might help you better understand what they are talking about.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

Justin

tonyb

Thanks Justin for posting some knowledgable info. The press is....well, the press,nice to hear from someone who has first hand experience in these things.

megasat16

tonyb wrote: »

The press is....well, the press,nice to hear from someone who has first hand experience in these things.

I agree! The press is the press! But I think at least the news coverage for the crisis in Japan seems more upfront and neutral than the daily U.S economy reports from AP on Yahoo.

apphd

JustinHEMI wrote: »

A lot of bad information in the media, being repeated here, about the status of that reactor and what the concerns with it are............

Justin

How true, and mainstream media continues to degrade to the levels of tabloid media every day.

JustinHEMI wrote: »

Here is the latest update, from the company that operates those units;............

While a better source than the media, I have come to doubt corporate press statements almost as much as the media, at least US corporations.

Thanks Justin, it's good to get things explained by someone with true knowledge of nuke power.
Again prayers for all. I think it will be some time before the full impact of this is known obviously since the situation is still unfolding.

apphd

Jstas wrote: »

I am aware of all of this and I still don't consider seismic activity in a seismically active zone to be any kind of precursor to fulfillment of a prophecy.

Poles have shifted multiple times in the past.

Earthquakes have been happening since the dawn of time.

When the average global temperature rises and the ocean levels increase (this has also happened multiple times in the past), tsunamis become more prevalent because the conditions seem to be better for it all to happen. Scientists are not really sure why yet.

Nothing that is going on now is any different from the millions of years previously that it's been happening.

There are only two differences. We, as humans, have built way more expensive stuff and put it places at risk to seismic activity and tidal forces. The other difference is that we have the Internet where many people several lacking in the cranial horsepower necessary to make the conclusions that they do are still making them, regardless of their education/intelligence level. Since humans, in general, behave like sheep, when one crackpot starts squawking and making noise, the rest pay attention while the rest of the much more reasonable and realistic scientific community is exasperated at the idiocy of it all they they are involuntarily in a perpetual state of "face-palm" and at a loss of where to start re-educating the masses.

Thanks Internet, you're the best!

While all good points the fact that statistics show nothing has changed it does not, can not say that it is not a precursor to fulfillment of a prophecy.

I don't think anyone can predict when this will be, or that we will even realize it until well into the event.
On a side note I find it interesting listening to different people from all around not just CP, choose to trust and relie on science for some things and denounce as not correct for others. Again just one of the parts of human nature to pick and choose arguments that support our viewpoints on any subject.

mrbigbluelight

JustinHEMI wrote: »

One more note about US operators. They all go through an 18 months training course, which consists of intense classroom training followed by 9 months of hard training in the simulator. Then, if they pass the NRC exam and get their license (only about 50% of applicants make it), they are then re-examined every 5 weeks with both a written and simulator exam. Once a year, the NRC comes back to examine us.

So, we are heavily scrutinized all the time. In training, if you make a mistake in the simulator, you are pulled off the unit until you undergo additional training. If you are still unsuccessful, you lose your license.
Justin

Just curious, Justin: ex-Navy nuke ?

"Once a year, the NRC comes back to examine us". Kind of like an ORSE ?


As others have said, thanks for the qualified input.

JustinHEMI

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Just curious, Justin: ex-Navy nuke ?

"Once a year, the NRC comes back to examine us". Kind of like an ORSE ?


As others have said, thanks for the qualified input.

Yup, got my start in the engine room of a fast attack submarine.

Hmmm I guess you could say kind of like ORSE, but not quite. Firstly, we have 2 NRC inspectors on site at all times. They are constantly looking at things and sticking their nose into things. A GOOD THING!

Secondly, our exam is a written exam and an operating exam. So yeah, I guess kind of like ORSE.

Throughout the rest of the year, we have several other outside agencies look at us. There is the "Institute of Nuclear Power Operations," or INPO for short, that has almost as much power as the NRC. This organization was formed directly out of the TMI event, because before then, utilities weren't sharing information or lessons learned. Few people know, that the event that cause TMI (a stuck open relief valve with operators not knowing what was going on), occurred a few months before at another plant in Ohio. However, the operators there recognized what was going on, they just didn't tell anyone about it. Had they, TMI wouldn't have happened. Also to come out of TMI, as I've already mentioned, is our training program. So a lot of good did come from the TMI event!

Anyway, back to other organizations. On top of the NRC and INPO, the two biggest watch dogs in the USA, we also have the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). Each of them come to look at us at lease bi-annually. Add to those state and local agencies and each utility's federally mandated internal oversight organization, and we are pretty much under constant inspection in the US.

I complain to my friends that my job sucks because someone is always looking to fire me, fine me, or throw me in jail. As funny as that is, it is true. My license to operate works in much the same way as your license to drive your car. If I make a mistake, I can be sanctioned on many different levels depending on the severity of the mistake.

Now, I can't speak to the level of scrutiny the rest of the world puts on its nuclear fleet, but in the USA, the public should sleep comfortably knowing that we are always being watched.

I also won't try to BS anyone because humans are always involved and when there is human involvement, there is the possibility or error or lack of integrity. For example, in the not too distant past, Davis-Besse averted a disaster by mere millimeters when some engineers at the plant decided to cover up severe reactor head wastage being caused by boric acid leakage. The only thing that saved us, and I mean US down wind of this plant, was the thin stainless steel lining that protects the thick carbon steel from the inside. If you want to know more or see picture, google it for some interesting reading. To make a long story short, had that lining ruptured, it would have made TMI look like a walk in the park.

Point is, that even with everything I talked about, there are still bad people in the world and we do our best to weed them out. The up side is that the industry as a whole learns from these event and implements changes so that they may never happen again.

Justin

mrbigbluelight

You mention boric acid; a reporter mentioned yesterday that if the plants couldn't get their primary cooling systems going, that "they were going to have to resort to pumping in SEAWATER !!! and boric acid !

.... The CAPS and exclamation points were to try to convey her horror ! :eek:

Boric acid used for corrosion/ph control ? Not used as a moderator is it ?

And a reactor fill system using saltwater isn't a big deal in the commercial sector is it ?
Inconel is your friend.

BlueFox

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

And a reactor fill system using saltwater isn't a big deal in the commercial sector is it ?

An article I read in the morning referred to seawater as being corrosive, and would probably render the reactor(s) as unusable in the future. Is that a factual statement?

MillerLiteScott

Yes and Yes.

Outfitter03

Chlorides as in sodium chloride in sea water is very corrosive. So for the most part any parts of the nuke plant that is now getting covered with seawater are not going to be used again. I think that is small in the list of worries right now.

Boric acid is a neutron absorber. It is used to absorb\eliminate slow moving (thermal) neutrons. This will help prevent further fission reactions from occurring. It eliminates the neutrons. Remember seeing the ping pong ball demo in school physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqc1x3_Evg.

Moderator (to moderate or slowdown) is a material that is used to slow down the neutrons to a thermal speed. This is usually accomplished by collisions with subatomic particles and the most commonly used moderators are water and graphite. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor which is fundamentally less stable than a water moderated reactors such are used by the US for power generation.

JustinHEMI

Outfitter03 wrote: »

Chlorides as in sodium chloride in sea water is very corrosive. So for the most part any parts of the nuke plant that is now getting covered with seawater are not going to be used again. I think that is small in the list of worries right now.

Boric acid is a neutron absorber. It is used to absorb\eliminate slow moving (thermal) neutrons. This will help prevent further fission reactions from occurring. It eliminates the neutrons. Remember seeing the ping pong ball demo in school physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqc1x3_Evg.

Moderator (to moderate or slowdown) is a material that is used to slow down the neutrons to a thermal speed. This is usually accomplished by collisions with subatomic particles and the most commonly used moderators are water and graphite. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor which is fundamentally less stable than a water moderated reactors such are used by the US for power generation.

This is correct. The sea water will likely ruin the portions of the plant it comes into contact with, long term. But realistically, none of those will probably operate ever again. Keeping the core cool is priority one, not future potential operations.

Boron (B-10) is a "thermal" neutron absorber, and a very good one at that. That is why a boiling water reactor (BWR), has a tank of it always on standby "just in case." Even with all control rods out, this tank of borated water will shutdown the reactor and MAINTAIN it shut down, regardless of core configuration. That is why they injected it, and I agree with their decision to do so. Considering they are not sure just how much fuel they damaged, it is prudent to put in the boron, just in case.

Pressurized water reactors (PWR), the other prevalent type of reactor design in the US, also uses Boric Acid mixed in their water all the time. Basically, they pull all of their control rods out during full power operation and use boron concentration to control reactor power. The downside is that it is VERY corrosive to carbon steel, and will destroy pretty quickly if left unchecked when it leaks. Hence, all PWR's have extensive boric acid mitigate programs to identify, fix and clean up leaks quickly.

*** YOU CAN STOP HERE IF YOU WANT, CONTINUE IF YOU WANT MORE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE***

Since he brought up moderator, I will briefly describe that process.

Different elements and isotopes have different "affinities" for absorbing neutrons. They also behave differently once they absorb a neutron. Some stuff just becomes radioactive, some stuff fissions. Well, in a reactor, obviously we want fission. However, the fuel we use in US reactors is U-235, and it is a "thermal" fuel. That means it fissions by interaction with "thermal" neutrons. The word "thermal," in this context, simply means the neutron is at the same energy state as its surroundings.

Well, neutrons born from fission are "fast" neutrons. Quite literally, they have far too much energy to go on to cause more fissions in U-235. They will just bounce right off. So, we have to "moderate," or "slow down" these neutrons to "thermal" energies. To do this, you have to bounce that neutron off of something of similar size that will absorb that energy and slow it down. Sort of like a billiard table. Think of a billiard ball you hit really fast, as it bounces of the other balls, it gets slower and slower.

Eventually, when the neutron is slow enough, it hits a U-235 atom and the chain reaction continues. Fortunately for fission, 2-5 neutrons are released each time so that we can keep it going, because some of those will leak out of the core or be absorbed by non-fuel materials.

All US power reactors, and the reactors in Japan, use water as this "moderator." It is cheap, abundant and performed exceedingly well at slowing down fast neutrons. That is why we thought it funny when they first said Hillary was flying "coolant" over to Japan. They are surrounded by an ocean of it.

Besides the poor design of the Chernobyl reactor in that they were graphite moderated, their reactor also was not inherently stable, like ALL US light water reactor are. What that means is, as temperature and reactor power rises, the reactor tries to shut itself down. In fact, we the operators literally FORCE the thing to do its job because the higher the temperature and the higher the power, the more "negative reactivity" is inserted that tries to shut it down. That was not true at Chernobyl. The higher their power got, the more it fed on itself. This is a very unstable, and very difficult way to operate a nuclear reactor.

A US reactor is "inherently stable" because left to its own devices, it will shut itself down. And, a Chernobyl type explosion IS NOT possible. That is why I get miffed when they say Japan could turn into a Chernobyl like event, because it simply isn't true. Even if they melted every last ounce of fuel in that core, it still isn't going to explode and send itself halfway around the world.

Ok I lied when I said "briefly." :P

Justin

mrbigbluelight

Very well done, Petty Office Justin. Straight up.

Commerical reactors aren't subject to cold water/SLOFA accidents due to their low levels of U235 enrichment ?

Polkersince85

Anybody here who is related to Japanese industrial production may take a hit from this also. Toyota, Honda and Nissan have suspended production. Rolling blackouts will further hamper industry and the ports are in shambles.

Outfitter03

Any guesses on what this is going to do to commodity prices? The amount of rebuilding that will need to be done in this country is massive. Between insurance settlements and the robust bank accounts of many Japanese People (they have a very high saving rate) they are going to be quick in desire to rebuild.

This quake was big enough to shake out a lot of small ones. Once the aftershocks stop they should have smooth sailing for a lot of years to come. So unlike building and rebuilding in a hurricane prone area such as Louisiana, Georgia and Florida it should be relatively safe for reconstruction.

JustinHEMI

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Very well done, Petty Office Justin. Straight up.

Commerical reactors aren't subject to cold water/SLOFA accidents due to their low levels of U235 enrichment ?

Well, no, they are susceptible, but things just operate different, and you're right, it is mostly due to the enrichment but also the size. An over cooling accident, such as a steam line break, is still a big deal. We don't really have a "cold water injection" accident, however. We do heat our feed water, and a "loss of feed water heating" causes a power excursion, but nothing like a highly enriched navy plant.

Justin

megasat16

Well, that quake was big enough to shift our poles and shorten the length of day by 1.8ms (confirmation needed).

And more suckers to come. It's just announced that the 2nd Tsunami might be possible with 10ft waves. A really bad time for the Japanese.

I got in touch with a Japanese friend through email. He lives in the west side of Japan so he and his family weren't very effected by the quake. But they are all very sad right now.

Rebuilding will happen but this is going to cost (both time and money) to them and somehow I am guessing we'll have some economic impact here too.

megasat16

Japan Before and After the 8.9 Quake.

Courtesy of NY Times. Move the divider / slider (left to right and vice versa) on the pictures to compare the areas affected by the 8.9 Quake and the Tsunami.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Ron-P

This video is just nuts...

http://video.l3.fbcdn.net/cfs-l3-snc6/81489/34/1605260179420_2624.mp4?oh=ac31b4d8738221641ba490396dc19636&oe=4D7F9F00&l3s=20110313100648&l3e=20110315101648&lh=0a6cfa5eeaecd6dc12abf

megasat16

Here is almost real time report of seismic activities (aftershocks) for the quake.

http://mapserver.gis.ttu.edu/japanquake/

It's just nuts but the frequency of aftershocks are a little less now which is the only good part here.

F1nut

megasat16 wrote: »

Japan Before and After the 8.9 Quake.

Courtesy of NY Times. Move the divider / slider (left to right and vice versa) on the pictures to compare the areas affected by the 8.9 Quake and the Tsunami.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

So sad.