Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Waveforms and Sonifications

The Mainichi has a very interesting article on North Korea's probable nuclear explosion. The article explains how Japanese scientists used the explosion's waveform to distinguish it from a naturally occurring earthquake:
Natural earthquake vs. nuclear test: waveform graphs tell the story. The Mainichi, January 6, 2016 (Mainichi Japan) 
North Korea claimed on Jan. 6 that it had tested a hydrogen bomb. Before the official announcement, however, news agencies were already reporting a possible nuclear test after an "artificial" earthquake was detected with its epicenter around North Korea's nuclear testing site in the northeast of the country... 
How can earthquake monitoring agencies tell the difference between a natural quake and one caused by a nuclear blast? The answer is in the incident's waveform. The undulations in the ground produced by a natural quake build to a sudden crescendo, while those produced by an underground nuclear test spike at the very beginning and then trail off....
I recommend reading the original article because it includes sample waveforms.

Just out of curiosity I searched for a seismograph of the 3/11 earthquake in Japan, the Great Honshu quake of 2011.

Here are a couple of findings:
VUME Virtual Upper Mantle of the Earth

Sonification of Tohoku Earthquake

I particularly recommend the second link, sonification of Tohoku Earthquake.




  1. ?Looks like what one would expect from a nuclear detonation rather than an earthquake! Jim Stone? Probably this has been known for a long time. That is, what the difference looks like. I imagine many people spotted that right away and did not wish to become dangerously unpopular. Thanks for this valuable information.

  2. Fukushima nuclear sabbotage or earthquake, you decide, comprehensive report by Jim Stone
    Thursday, July 23, 2015 22:08

    1. "The most convincing evidence in the public domain that 3/11 was a nuclear attack on Japan is probably seismic. I have seen the seismic records and hope to annex them to my follow-up statement. From them the court will be able see that the main event, triggering the deadly tsunami, is preceded by a smaller release of energy, consistent in my opinion with a nuclear detonation or detonations."

  3. So fukushima is all a big conspiracy by lizard people and bad old smart humans. Nucs dont explode becuase of human incomperence and madness.

    People wonder how pronukers get away with saying all the destruction of fuku is conspiracy theory. How pronukers with the aid of the corporate press to say that fukushima is not that bad. You imply that is not the terrible unplanned catastrophe it is.
    You are either an irresponsible person who is not thinking things through and knows little about science william or part of the problem that keeps the people skeptical about the dangers of nuclear madness.

    Fukushima was a sries of terrible mishaps that is killing the pacific ocean. Silly people who frame this grave catastrophe as a conspiracy are not helping anyone understand it and undermining people who are trying to hang and get the word out.
    Fukushima information and truth about the dangers of nuclear and nuclear waste are continously suppressed and that suppression is enabled by people like you framing fuku as a conspiracy.

    The real intrigue is in the suppression of fuku and the damage it is doing, has done. people who frame fuku as a conspiracy are enabling that william.

    people who are scared of fuku anyway or too much part of a system trying to survive just look at statements by people like you and say all the bad stuff people are saying about fuku are just conspiracy theories. too bad.

    1. I am not sure what your position is? I simply notice that the wave form looks like a blast rather than an earthquake. What about you? How do you see it? And I think Jim Stone might be correct.

  4. Another spook. I have been an antinuclear activist since 1979. Been with quakers at yucca mountain. I have seen so many lies and so much spook crap. I met helen caldicott. This spook nonsense is awful william. It makes a mockery of people trying to get out the word on fukushima. Japan is earth quake prone . The reactors were crappy. I do not know what or who you are but the pacific is dying. People like jim stone clearly have motives that are dubious. You do to if you are going to pursue this nonsense. I am not interested. I cannot believe that people can be so irresponsible or perhaps even evil. Like it is all a game and who van come up with the most outlandish fukushima intrigue theories. You are either into espionage or being very silly. Childrens and living creatures lives are at stake. People need a clear message. They get it from helen, arnie, busby kamps, etc but not goofballs like you and your jim stone. fukushima is not a cult conspiracy phenomenon or ideological It is extreme human incompetance and nuclear madness. I like majia because she has the guts to come out and tell it like it is.Especially about epigenetics and autism. Joyb too though i sometimes disagree with her.

    1. Firstly, comments placed on this site are not going to effect world events in any significant way. Secondly, looking at all aspects of any event is valuable. Censoring some positions is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Here is another individual who seems to think Fukushima was an attack:
      "I have published books (in Japanese) and articles claiming that the tsunami and nuclear disaster that occurred in Fukushima, Japan on March 11, 2011, sometimes known as “3/11” was the result of a deliberate attack.

      My sources for this assertion, and what I am about to write, include Japanese military intelligence, former Prime Minister Naoto Kan (whom I have known personally for many years), members of the crew that smuggled the nuclear weapons used in the attack on Fukushima into Japan, members of both the French and British branches of the Rothschild family, senior CIA agents and a member of the team that actually drilled the nuclear weapons into the seabed before the 3/11 attack."
      Now you can take up your arguments with him as I am the wrong party to argue with. Best of luck.

    2. what a looney tune or a spook. probably both for effect. too bad

  5. This is a clear example of a non neutral pronuc trying to group all antinuclear activists together though he does not say so diectly, as fukushima conspiracy theorists. There maybe other things going on but fuku is not a conspiracy. High country news and utne so called green magazine ls support nuclear power and imply that fukushima cannot be as bad as it really is because of all the outlandish fuku conspiracy theorist. How sill or mean can you be william?

  6. William noted in his comment: "you decide."

    I don't think that is shilling.

    Who knows where the truth lies. I see flaws in Stone's narrative but I also see flaws in the official narrative.

    Where is the truth? None of us little people will ever know but I do think its important to take each piece of evidence and hold it up and exam it carefully, testing veracity.

    I taught a class on 9-11 twice. From that class and my subsequent readings I've come to doubt the "official story" but I don't know, and will never know,what really happened.

    I found the Mainichi article interesting and found it also rather odd that the paper didn't use the 2011 earthquake as the exemplar of what an earthquake wave looks like.

    Why doesn't the 3-11 earthquake look like most "ordinary" quakes? There are many possible explanations, including natural aberrations.

    The question WHY is always worth asking.

    Conspiracy theories thrive when official stories fail tests of narrative veracity and persuasiveness.

  7. Why come up with such an off the wall confabulation majia? People drilling deep holes and setting of nucs to set off an earthquake to cause meltdowns and nuclear explosions and burn up nuclear fuel waste storage tanks. bo has said many times many of the stories that appear in the press in japan that seem to be open about fukushima, are controlled opposition. Bo has recently said that the cia was involved in fukushima politics which makes sense if the japanese had a covert nuclear program there. The mainichi story was a plant to take heat off the incompetence of the nuclear industry Majia. As far as science goes the same people who are claiming that the earthquake that caused fuku meltdowns was manmade is gospel, and must be accepted by all serioulsy concerned about the continuing fuku disaster, also say a haarp technology is used in russia to push fuku contamination out of the atmosphere. There was a 9.0 earthquake by kamchatla in 2012. An earthquake like the tohoko earthquake was quite in the realm of possibilities according to geologists before fukushima. Part of the ring of fire.

    There are earthquakes in japan everyday. There should never have been any nuclear power plants built in japan especially in japan. Sure there are sppoks and intrigues going on all over the world but why do people insist on turning a terrible catastrophe into a very off the wall conspiracy?

    Is it so hard to believe that tjere are large earthquakes that come along every hundred years or more that can cause nuclear meltdowns. Probably smaller ones would too.

    Makes people who say they are concerned about the ongoing catastrophes of fukushima , nuclear waste in the environment, ongoing operation operation of the these dangerous contraptions and waste sound like they cannot get the word out unless it is exagerated. They are trivializing mandmade nuclear insanity and distracting from it. Everyday some person puts something off the wall on the net like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuked they were fire bombed. That there really are no nuclear power plants. Encouraging this way of flakey thinking trivializes the ongoing catastrophe of human involvement with nuclear bombs, nuclear power, radionucleides and radioactive waste.

    1. I agree with all you say about nuclear fallibility. The plants are entirely to vulnerable to a wide array of hazards, as I've documented at this blog for years, and there is no solution for the terrible waste.

      Nuclear sabotage is also a proven risk after Stuxnet.

      Does the technology exist for other covert forms of nuclear sabotage? Probably.

      Nuclear isn't safe because of the range of hazards and so in the final analysis what matters most is shutting them all down.

  8. I know of saudi students that were flown out of this country before 9 11 but i am not talking about 911 majia. Fukushima is a dealy manmade catastrophe due to incomprence. The next thing the ilk will be saying is that the st louis landfill burn was concocted by lizard men in the 1930s. they just want to take the heat off the nuclear cartells and their minions and i say screw em i totally believe 911 was is a conspiracy by im really concerned abput tje death of tje ocean and the nuclear waste and all the old npps on the verge

  9. some of those same people come up with a bottomless pit of fuku conspiracies like a missle hit fuel pool 4.

  10. Stuxnet was probably used in iran. Tjere was probably a small nuc meltdown because of it. My friends in japan have always maintained even before fukushima that military contractors like ge and raytheon were operating a secret weapons program at fuku that dwarfs n koreas h bomb shit which is pretty stupid in itself for such a shitty contaminated little piece of shit country. My friend inb taipei says it is becoming uninhabitable there from fuku and all beaches close to taipei are cloed from fuku rads. If the crazy flipin n koreans whom the us probably helped arm screw up and one of their nucs or several s korean plants and any opened jap npps blow the world is finished. The japanese and american miƱitary scumbags got caught with their pants pulled down. Its as simple as that all this nuclear bombs underground and stuxnet bullshit to trivialize the assininity of fuku is psychotic nonsense and cointelpro evil. Let the masses sleep thats what they wanna do. Its what the cointelpro dogs and pronukers and govts and tepco want. All six reactors at Fukushime experienced major damage core according to TEPCO. We saw reactors 1, 3 and 4 burn up, blow up, disintegrate, vaporize, whatever you want to call what happened. Too much shit went ex-containment. It won't be fixed. It can't be fixed. The amount of shit being measured in the water coming out from under the plant continues to go up, exponentially. You can all 'hope for the best' but that's all anyone can do. TPECO already said the tech needed to clean this mess up DOES NOT EXIST. Get used to it. The jig is up and we are and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

  11. None of these comments actually addresses the waveforms. Can anyone offer alternative explanations? Would a sudden fault shift explain the unusual wave form?

  12. sorry about being rue to william. g gordon liddy admitted that the cia plants its own conspiracy theories to confuse people.

    This is from the USGS
    FACT: An “Aftershock” can be greater than the initial earthquake.
    “Foreshock”, “mainshock”, and “aftershock” are relative terms, all of which describe earthquakes. Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes that occur in the same general area during the days to years following a larger event or “mainshock”. They mostly occur within 1-2 fault lengths of the mainshock. For the largest earthquakes, this is a long distance; it is thought that the 1906 San Francisco earthquake triggered events in southern California, western Nevada, southern central Oregon, and western Arizona, all within 2 days of the mainshock.
    As a general rule, aftershocks represent readjustments in the vicinity of a fault that slipped at the time of the mainshock. The frequency of these aftershocks decreases with time. If an aftershock is larger than the first earthquake then we call it the mainshock and the previous earthquakes in a sequence become foreshocks. About 5% to 10% of earthquakes in California are followed by a larger one within a week and then are considered a foreshock.
    It is possible to have two earthquakes of about the same size in a sequence. There is a 5% chance of having the two largest earthquakes in a sequence be within 0.2 units of magnitude, during the first week of a sequence. Given that very large earthquakes are rare to begin with, it is not surprising that we have not yet observed two very large earthquakes so close together in time in California.