[1st Stop: Kann-no-kura Tsunami rocks]

Facts:

We visited Kann-no-kura (神の倉)Tsunami rocks and cliffs. Over 1m huge rocks were there. The biggest one is over 5m in diameter. Those rocks have similar characteristics with surrounding cliffs (seafloor sediments containing shell. Seafloor bedding structures, many combinations of sandstone and siltstone were confirmed). So, scientists are thinking that those rocks came from the cliffs.

In the Meiji earthquake, higher tsunami than 3.11 attacked a village. Although the earthquake itself was weaker than the 3.11 earthquake, unfortunately several tsunamis overlapped and strengthened each other, resulting in a huge tsunami that hit the coast. As a result, 400 people were killed; 800 houses were destroyed. Then, local people made a wall (using sediments).

Group chats:

We as a group discussed our reflections about the tsunami boulders site. The earth science students from ANU reflected the difference between our reactions to both sites from today. The tsunami boulders were a site of natural marvel, and with respect to geological phenomena the tsunami boulders were amazing to behold. It was only when comparing it with the second site that we were able to make the connection with this huge geological event and the impact of livelihoods and on people. It drew on themes from David’s lecture, in which he highlighted that a natural disaster is only correctly classified if it poses a threat to human life – and in this case some of us found the secluded, natural cove as so distant from life that we could absorb the tsunami debris without even considering the implications for society that we’ve already witnessed and heard about. Some others in the group noted the local man laying out his seaweed at this site , which reminded them about the human aspect of the event. The man being so close to the sea really struck some of our (non-geology) members, reminding us of the vulnerability of people who live near the coast and reminding us of the fact that communities rely on these areas for their livelihoods. We all unanimously noted that seeing such large rocks moved by a natural force really hit home about the enormity and ferocity of such an event.

During the tour some of our group spent time talking to Saiyama-san, one of the tour guides. Like Mio-san the day before, she was Japanese but not a local of the area. She also came to volunteer after the tsunami. She also thought her time in Tohoku would be temporary, but ended up living there permanently. We asked why, and she said that she while she really liked the natural scenery and lifestyle and felt lucky to live in a place so beautiful, it was the people she loved the most and that she felt a very strong connection to community as a result of volunteering during the reconstruction. It’s an interesting contrast that while many people chose to leave (understandably so) after their livelihoods and families were torn apart by the tsunami, others have developed lifelong ties to these areas through rebuilding.

We also had a few group members remark on the tour of the coast today in regard to past tsunami events. Hearing about the 1960’s Chile earthquake (and subsequent tsunami) really conveyed the regularity of such events, and that even though the scale of the 2011 event was unprecedented, we can’t be led to believe it was simply a one-off. We also felt the same message was conveyed by seeing the geological evidence of prior tsunamis: relatively large boulders of older age had been displaced from previous tsunamis. Our discussions around the unlikelihood of another event occurring were perhaps somewhat misplaced – these were reminders that tsunamis have, and will continue to occur on a ‘regular basis’, and maybe preparing for the worst is not a bad idea. One of our group also mentioned the other implication for the fact that earthquakes from the other side of the Pacific can cause tsunamis in Japan. This means that the possibility of one of these ‘rare events’ is increased as it doesn’t even need to be an earthquake near Japan for this kind of disaster to occur. However, one comment from the tour guides was that we now have better warning systems – whereas there was absolutely no warning from the Chile quake in the 1960’s anecdote – meaning that technology can improve our chances of avoiding catastrophe and perhaps even allow us to relax enough to make little sacrifices of preparedness (i.e. not orienting the school with tsunami-proofing in mind), with the hope that modern technology can accommodate our shortcomings in preparation and aid us when these disasters may occur.

They did not have any casualties from Tsunami that happened in 2011 partly because the height of the tsunami was not much higher there and the residential houses are located in hills, but also because the residents learned many from the experience of the previous earthquake. Thus, there were no natural disasters either, just an earthquake and a big wave. We saw an old man drying seaweed on the coast close to the Tsunami rocks to sell them, and realised how important and natural it is for fisheries to live near the sea. It reinforced the importance of protecting yourself from a tsunami. The Japanese students felt that there was a relationship as being part of a shared community – because they respect them and they are a part of the identity.

We thought the amount of force the tsunami had would be impossible to imagine without the rocks. They help to understand how great the tsunami was.

The damage by tsunami is usually limited to the people who live near the coast. The people living further inland often do not know the mechanism of a tsunami happening, how fast and how high it reaches to the coast. They do not know how to evacuate and where to evacuate. Science communication should be a form of conviction that makes them know the plan and to participate in evacuation drills because we need them, we want them to be alive and their lives matter to us. It’s also important to maintain awareness of the changing nature of science, and make sure that risk is evaluated regularly and communicating that risk is part of an ongoing conversation with communities that are likely to be affected. While students and staff knew how to evacuate, it was based on information that was outdated and didn’t reflect the possibility of a tsunami of this scale.

The coordinator who is actually a volunteer working for a private company showed us the protected wall which is 6.5 metres high. As we learnt from the last workshop, the process of deciding how tall the wall should be built was not peaceful mainly because almost all of the residents close to the coast are fishermen so they were opposed to building even a 6 metre tall wall to monitor the condition of the sea while they are in their houses. They are very sensitive to the sea. They can obtain much information from the colour of it, the wave of it and anything about it. Therefore they do not want to accept the relatively short wall, but the government did not allow that. She said they are now satisfied with that to some extent because they asked to raise the roads so that the wall does not stand out much and inhibit them from seeing the sea.

[2nd Stop: Okawa elementary school]

Facts:

Okawa elementary school (大川小学校) was close to the Pacific ocean, but located a little bit landward. Children and teachers could not see the ocean from their school. Additionally, the school had an urban design (flat. not so high building) and have Kitakami river(北上川). Firstly, just after the great shaking of the 3.11 main wave, childrens and teachers evacuated to the school yard and waited about 50 min. Then, at 3:30 pm, a car drove near the school shouting “tsunami is coming!”. Childrens and teachers start to evacuate along the river. At 3:37 pm, the great tsunami (8.6m) struck. As a result, 84 people (74 childrens and 10 teachers) were killed. Local people are preserving the full building to memorialise the event.

Group chats:

When discussing the impact of the school visit today, we had many reflections. Some of us found it necessary to imagine the extent of the force of the tsunami. The UTokyo students reflected that the elementary school – with its pool, classrooms, and other buildings – was very reminiscent of their own school, and it really made them connect with the familiarity of the scene. The ANU students reflected that they would’ve changed their opinion (about removing relict buildings following the natural disaster) since the workshop yesterday. All the ANU students found the site really moving, and reflect that keeping such sites is so impactful and perhaps necessary to comprehending the scale of such events.

We also considered our opinions and thoughts about the workshop from yesterday regarding preserving the town hall, and whether our choices then would have been different had we visited Ukedo Elementary School before doing the workshop. Seeing the result of such a force of nature was incredibly impactful, and it’s possible that our change of thoughts now may have happened before the workshop, thus changing our final decision about preservation of the town hall.

We as a group had a discussion comparing the protocols around evacuation plans. Namely, we discussed the community aspect of evacuations in Japan following tsunami/earthquake warnings – it’s often a large-scale process that is homogenous among all members in the community. For Australia’s natural disasters – we discussed bushfires – we noted that evacuation plans are a lot more individual- or family-specific evacuation plans. Also the fact that Australian bushfire/flood evacuation is voluntary is also a major difference between both countries.

Following Mio’s workshop yesterday, one of our members also noticed the amount of gas tanks attached to houses there were in some of the small towns we passed through. This insight highlighted the vulnerability of many of these small towns, and allowed us to realise all the many considerations that ought to go into preparing for such disasters. Another reflection from Mio’s workshop was raised when one of our members was quoting David about the fact that the orientation of the school was designed so that classroom lighting was most beneficial to working (no shadows cast by pens). This orientation of the building was one of the reasons that the tsunami had as large of an impact as it did, because the longer side of the school was face-on to the tsunami. A UTokyo student asked if it was worth it changing the orientation of the school in case of another scenario, which is a similar question to whether it’s worth building a 15m seawall in the event of another tsunami. It’s the exact same predicament – is it worth taking extra precautions (i.e. a bigger seawall, a school with tsunami-suited orientation, etc…) at the expense of everyday benefits that are more minor but more regularly useful (e.g. better sea views, no sun cast over the paper, etc…). There is a lot of complexity!

In Japan, earthquakes have historically occurred on an almost regular basis and are widely understood to be a phenomenon that causes enormous damage to human society. Despite this, it is extremely unfortunate that earthquake preparations, including hazard maps, were not sufficient. Historical lessons may have been forgotten in the repetition of daily peaceful life. Or perhaps they were tempted to blindly believe that it would be safe, or subconsciously felt like it was someone else’s problem.

From the hazard map, it can be felt that a situation in which 84 people lost their lives was not anticipated. While we can’t blame the teachers for following emergency protocols, the rulings on display in the lawsuit are very understandable. Because this is a protocol we rely on in times of emergency, we thought it should be created with the worst possible scenario in mind.

In Japan, it has become a habit to hold evacuation drills every year, even after entering elementary school, junior high school, high school, and university, or even companies. Escape to the schoolyard during evacuation drills, participate in company fire drills, and learn about the rules for evacuations have become a common culture throughout the country. However, even for the Japanese, they sometimes feel that such training has become a mere shell. It is very difficult to be able to respond flexibly depending on the situation, but there are very few people in schools, businesses, or even families who have sufficient communication about natural disasters and how to respond to them.

Alternatively, people who have never experienced a catastrophic situation may not have an image of it. A student from the University of Tokyo whom Miki spoke with had a parent who experienced the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, but because a new city was developed rapidly without leaving any ruins, it was difficult to imagine the disaster. Miki is also a student of Earth science, but her parents are farmers and her relatives are fishermen, but she knows that concepts such as earthquakes and magnitude are not very clear to them. In terms of how to get the general public to understand highly specialised knowledge such as earthquakes and tsunamis, despite the fact that Japan has experienced many earthquakes and tsunamis, unfortunately it still has not matured.

The elementary school remained. There are not many houses and buildings around that because all of them were flooded by the tsunami at that time.

In contrast to the reality of Japan, where earthquakes and tsunamis regularly hit cities and fields, we realised that Japan’s buildings, coastal areas, and countryside do not have structures that reflect the reality. Or perhaps it has been destroyed and rebuilt every time a major disaster strikes. In a sense, it can be said that we are coexisting with natural disasters. However, for us, this way of human society in the midst of nature was also seen as the way it was in the past. Considering that in recent years in Japan, we have seen the development of earthquake-resistant architecture and breakwaters against tsunamis, we can think that the way we coexist with nature and our culture itself are changing.