Yes, they were fine. Other than some broken dishes and minor damage to their home.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
recent earthquake in Japan & cell service
- Thread starter alok
- Start date
I'll only say this once:
Radio has its place, and so do smartphones (or phones in general), but each has its weaknesses, and one must be aware of them and prepare accordingly.
And human error plays a role in what would otherwise be a sound system, too.
In all the California wildfires, a recurring theme was that the emergency alert systems were not activated for one reason or another, even in situations where the equipment was in good working order and there would've been ample time for people to act on the information. For example, the evacuation sirens could've been activated during the fires in Lahaina, but they weren't. This was due to an error in judgement, not equipment failure, so would activating those sirens have been meaningfully helpful? It's hard to say, but the point is, the systems themselves aren't always the problem.
In other words, even the best, most comprehensive emergency alert systems in existence are only as strong as their weakest link, which is usually the humans who maintain and control it, not generally their susceptibility to damage or destruction (assuming they're designed to resist damage).
Sometimes an otherwise decent system will collapse when there's a high demand (in the case of the 1989 earthquake, that would be early analog 1G cell networks and copper landlines, both of which had a finite capacity), but again, there's nothing inherently wrong with the system; it simply was not designed with the needed capacity, which, again, falls to the human designers who failed to take that need into account.
Radio (AM, FM, or otherwise) as a means of broadcasting emergency alerts and info is fine and good, but yet again, it's only as good as the humans who operate it, and, as has been pointed out countless times in countless posts, because of the budgets of many stations are being cut and staff are being reduced (and in some cases, eliminated altogether) and the heavier reliance on shared resources and automation, any advantage radio has of actually being a good source of info during an emergency has been severely undermined. For example, when there's a disaster or emergency, a fair number of stations (particularly smaller ones) will just carry on with their normal, pre-programmed, automated schedule, seemingly oblivious to said disaster or emergency, even if they happen within their local coverage areas. How is that going to help anyone? If you're lucky, the EAS alert will sound, but don't expect anything else from a 100% automated station.
Smartphones, imperfect though they may be, do help to fill this void, so in a way, we're probably better off now than at any other point in history as far as getting quick and relevant info during emergencies goes, since we no longer have to rely on a radio station that may or may not broadcast any. At least in theory.
In practice, however, the chances of getting any info at all – from any source – are 50/50 at best.
c
Radio has its place, and so do smartphones (or phones in general), but each has its weaknesses, and one must be aware of them and prepare accordingly.
And human error plays a role in what would otherwise be a sound system, too.
In all the California wildfires, a recurring theme was that the emergency alert systems were not activated for one reason or another, even in situations where the equipment was in good working order and there would've been ample time for people to act on the information. For example, the evacuation sirens could've been activated during the fires in Lahaina, but they weren't. This was due to an error in judgement, not equipment failure, so would activating those sirens have been meaningfully helpful? It's hard to say, but the point is, the systems themselves aren't always the problem.
In other words, even the best, most comprehensive emergency alert systems in existence are only as strong as their weakest link, which is usually the humans who maintain and control it, not generally their susceptibility to damage or destruction (assuming they're designed to resist damage).
Sometimes an otherwise decent system will collapse when there's a high demand (in the case of the 1989 earthquake, that would be early analog 1G cell networks and copper landlines, both of which had a finite capacity), but again, there's nothing inherently wrong with the system; it simply was not designed with the needed capacity, which, again, falls to the human designers who failed to take that need into account.
Radio (AM, FM, or otherwise) as a means of broadcasting emergency alerts and info is fine and good, but yet again, it's only as good as the humans who operate it, and, as has been pointed out countless times in countless posts, because of the budgets of many stations are being cut and staff are being reduced (and in some cases, eliminated altogether) and the heavier reliance on shared resources and automation, any advantage radio has of actually being a good source of info during an emergency has been severely undermined. For example, when there's a disaster or emergency, a fair number of stations (particularly smaller ones) will just carry on with their normal, pre-programmed, automated schedule, seemingly oblivious to said disaster or emergency, even if they happen within their local coverage areas. How is that going to help anyone? If you're lucky, the EAS alert will sound, but don't expect anything else from a 100% automated station.
Smartphones, imperfect though they may be, do help to fill this void, so in a way, we're probably better off now than at any other point in history as far as getting quick and relevant info during emergencies goes, since we no longer have to rely on a radio station that may or may not broadcast any. At least in theory.
In practice, however, the chances of getting any info at all – from any source – are 50/50 at best.
c
i can also tell you 2g cell network cant transmit wireless emergency alerts, and add to that, the cellular providers arent required to transmit them either
Glad to hear that, Kelly A.
I agree with the knowledge of "secondchoice" about the phone system & "cc333" regarding the 50/50 thinking on getting info from either source, phones vs. broadcasting in emergencies.
take care all.
And it was pointed out on another thread people have to have radios in the first place.
I haven't tested it, but I found a portable radio I've had for years. The batteries weren't in it but I could have used batteries I had.
I remember seeing "hand crank" radios several years ago. IIRC you would spin the handle and "charge" a radio for a period of time. No leaky batteries. They were kind of pricey. I have a stash of batteries with a manufacturer shelve life of at least 5 years on hand which was cheaper than the hand crank radio. Also several empty LED flashlights with a couple of pack of unopened batteries with a rubber band around both.
According to the CDC, 59% have radios available for emergencies in their home. But that also means that 41% don't, and that's a large percentage.
BOSAI: Science that Can Save Your Life - TV | NHK WORLD-JAPAN Live & Programs
Japan has a long history of natural disasters. BOSAI explores how to overcome them and save lives with the power of science.
NHK Japan has released specials and PSA's they call BOSAI as part of a response on how the country would need to disasters the next time they are hit. And recently they did specials related to the Ishikawa Quake.