Everything

Flooding From Tsunami

Japan's Coast Before the Earthquaker

NASA’s Terra satellite’s first view of northeastern Japan in the wake of a devastating earthquake and tsunami reveal extensive flooding along the coast. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) acquired the top image of the Sendai region on March 12, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. The lower image, taken by Terra MODIS on February 26, 2011, is provided as a point of reference.

Water is black or dark blue in these images. It is difficult to see the coastline in the March 12 image, but a thin green line outlines the shore. This green line is higher-elevation land that is above water, presumably preventing the flood of water from returning to the sea. The flood indicator on the lower image illustrates how far inland the flood extends.

Both images were made with infrared and visible light, a combination that increases the contrast between muddy water and land. Plant-covered land is green, while snow-covered land is pale blue. Clouds are white and pale blue. The paved surfaces in the city of Sendai colors it brown.

MODIS detected a fire burning near the shore north of Sendai. The fire is marked with a red box. It is also surrounded by floods.

The photo-like true-color image acquired a few hours later shows plumes of sediment washed into the ocean along the coast and a dark plume of smoke near Sendai. Both images are from the MODIS Rapid Response System, which provides twice-daily images of Japan.

NASA images courtesy the MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC. Caption by Holli Riebeek.

Instrument: Terra – MODIS

Christchurch Eartquake

It is a modern human tendency to focus on the number of an earthquake—specifically, the magnitude, or what people used to call the “Richter scale.” But the destruction from a quake usually has more to do with location and timing. Such was the case with the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, on February 22, 2011.

A September 2010 earthquake centered 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of Christchurch, in the plains near Darfield, struck at 4:35 a.m., had a magnitude of 7.1, and caused some structural damage and one death (by heart attack). The earthquake in February 2011 occurred at 12:51 p.m. and just 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the center of Christchurch. It had a magnitude of 6.3, though was officially classified—scientifically speaking—as an aftershock of the 2010 quake. At least 166 people died, and the city of Christchurch was devastated structurally and emotionally. Many people are still missing.

The natural-color image above was captured on March 4, 2011, by the Advanced Land Imager (ALI) on NASA’s Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) satellite. Overlain on the map are seismological measurements of the ground shaking in the Christchurch area on February 22, as noted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Hazard Program.
The deeper the red color of the circle, the more intense the “peak ground acceleration,” or shaking of the earth. Note how intensity is highest right around the most densely developed areas of Christchurch. City officials and news accounts also described liquefaction—the softening and loosening of the soil due to shaking and groundwater penetration—that was 300 to 500 percent worse than during the September 2010 earthquake.

There are two forms of energy that cause the shaking in an earthquake. “P” or primary waves provide the initial, often vertical, jolt that lifts people and structures off the ground. “S” or secondary waves lead to horizontal shaking. Most structures collapse during the longer-duration S waves because buildings are not designed to handle this side-to-side motion. In Christchurch, the quake occurred so close by that the lag between P and S waves was a mere second.

References
GeoNet (2011, March 4) Christchurch badly damaged by magnitude 6.3 earthquake. Accessed March 8, 2011.
GNS Science (2011, February 25) February 22nd earthquake in Christchurch. Accessed March 8, 2011.
New Zealand Herald (2011, February ) Christchurch earthquake: Levels of liquefaction 300-500 pc worse. Accessed March 8, 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey (n.d.) Shake Map: South Island of New Zealand. Accessed March 8, 2011.
NASA Earth Observatory image by Robert Simmon, using ALI data from the EO-1 Team and USGS Earthquake Hazard Program. Caption by Mike Carlowicz.

There are concerns about using ethanol in gasoline. It is possible that ethanol is actually worse for the environment and increasing the rate of global warming; however, the EPA is allowing E15.

E15 (a blend of gasoline and ethanol)

In response to a request by Growth Energy under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has partially granted a waiver to allow fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to introduce into commerce gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15) for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to several conditions. On October 13, 2010, EPA granted a partial waiver for E15 for use in MY2007 and newer light-duty vehicles (i.e., cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles). On January 21, 2011, EPA granted a partial waiver for E15 for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles. These decisions were based on test results provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other information regarding the potential effect of E15 on vehicle emissions. Taken together, the two actions allow, but do not require, E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles if conditions for mitigating misfueling and ensuring fuel quality are met. EPA is in the process of completing work on regulations that would provide a more practical means of meeting the conditions.

Prior to the distribution of E15, fuel and fuel additive manufacturers are required to register the fuel with EPA. For more information on fuel registration visit the Registration and Health Effect Testing page. There are also a number of other actions including changes to various state and local laws that may also affect the distribution of E15.

What is E15?

Ethanol is an alcohol that can be mixed with gasoline to result in a cleaner-burning fuel. The most common blend of gasoline and ethanol is E10, or 10 percent of ethanol to 90 percent of gasoline. E10 was granted a waiver under Clean Air Act section 211(f)(4) by operation of law over 30 years ago. E15 is gasoline containing 15 vol% ethanol.

The primary source of ethanol is corn, but other grains or biomass sources may be used.
What is the E15 waiver?

In order to protect the emission control systems of vehicles and engines, the Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of fuels or fuel additives that are not substantially similar to the fuels or fuel additives used in certifying vehicles and engines to emission standards. However, the Act authorizes EPA to grant a waiver of this prohibition for a fuel or fuel additive if it can be demonstrated that vehicles and engines using the otherwise prohibited fuel or fuel additive will continue to meet emission standards over their “full useful life” (100,000 or 120,000 miles, depending on the vehicle type and model year).

In March 2009, Growth Energy (a coalition of U.S. ethanol supporters) and 54 ethanol manufacturers applied for a waiver to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline from E10 to E15. The waiver application included data on the impact of E15 on vehicle emissions, fuel system materials, and driveability. Additional data were developed by DOE, which in 2008 began testing for potential impacts of various ethanol-gasoline blends on emissions of MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. This testing followed enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which calls for significantly increasing the amount of biofuels, such as ethanol, to be used in transportation fuel. EPA received over 78,000 public comments about Growth Energy’s application.

Initially, EPA partially granted Growth Energy’s waiver request application. Based in large part on DOE test data, the Agency approved the waiver for and allowed the introduction into commerce of E15 for use in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to certain conditions. EPA did not approve the waiver for E15 use in MY2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks), highway and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment (e.g., boats, snowmobiles, and lawnmowers) due to insufficient test data or other information to support a waiver for these vehicles and engines. At the time of the announcement in October, EPA deferred action on E15 for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles until DOE test data for those model years became available.

On January 21, 2011, after DOE test data were made available to the public (see EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211 at www.regulations.gov), EPA took further action on Growth Energy’s waiver request application to approve the introduction into commerce of E15 for use in MY 2001-2006 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to the same conditions that apply to the partial waiver decision for later model year vehicles. Taken together, the two waiver decisions allow the introduction into commerce of E15 for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles if the waiver conditions are met.
What Vehicles May Use E15?

* Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs).
* MY2001 and newer cars.
* MY2001 and newer light-duty trucks.
* MY2001 and newer medium-duty passenger vehicles. (SUVs).

top of page
What Vehicles and Engines May Not Use E15?

* All motorcycles.
* All vehicles with heavy-duty engines, such as school buses, transit buses, and delivery trucks.
* All off-road vehicles, such as boats and snowmobiles.
* All engines in off-road equipment, such as lawnmowers and chain saws.
* All MY2000 and older cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (SUVs).

top of page
What Conditions are Part of the Waiver Decision?

EPA placed two types of conditions on the waiver for E15: those for mitigating the potential for misfueling of E15 into vehicles, engines and equipment for which E15 is not approved, and those addressing fuel and ethanol quality. All conditions must be met prior to the introduction of E15 into commerce.

Fuel quality conditions:

* Ethanol used for E15 must meet ASTM International D4806-10.
* The Reid Vapor Pressure for E15 is limited to 9.0 psi during the summertime.

Misfueling mitigation conditions:

* Labels must be placed on E15 retail dispensers indicating that E15 use is only for MY2001 and newer motor vehicles.
* Product Transfer Documents (PTDs) must accompany all transfers of fuels for E15 use.
* Parties involved in the manufacture of E15 must participate in a survey of compliance at fuel retail dispensing facilities to ensure proper labeling of dispensers.
* Parties must submit a plan addressing conditions to EPA for approval.

top of page
What is EPA doing to Address Potential Misfueling?

EPA is in the process of establishing a regulatory program to help mitigate potential misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment for which E15 is not approved. Concurrently with the October 13, 2010 partial waiver decision, the Agency proposed a rule that would require all E15 fuel dispensers to have a label if a retail station chooses to sell E15, and sought comment on separate labeling requirements for fuel blender pumps and fuel pumps that dispense E85. Similar to the prohibition in Clean Air Act section 211(f)(1), the rule would prohibit the use of gasoline containing greater than 10 vol% ethanol in vehicles and engines not covered by the partial waiver for E15. In addition, the rule would require PTDs specifying ethanol content and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) to accompany the transfer of gasoline blended with ethanol and a national survey of retail stations to ensure compliance with these requirements. The rule would also modify the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program by updating the Complex Model to allow fuel manufacturers to certify batches of gasoline containing up to E15. The measures were designed to help promote the successful introduction of E15 into commerce.

EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule in November and provided a 60-day public comment period that ended on January 3, 2011.

top of page
Notices and Updates
NOTE: You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, available as a free download, to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more about PDF, and for a link to the free Acrobat Reader.

Under the authority of Clean Air Act section 211(f)(4), EPA may consider the March 2009 application from Growth Energy for a waiver for a gasoline-ethanol blend with up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15) to be used in non-flexible-fueled vehicles.

EPA reviewed Growth Energy’s application along with available test data, other information and public comments. On October 13, 2010, EPA determined that, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the waiver decision, a gasoline produced with greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol will not cause or contribute to a failure of MY 2007 and newer cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger motor vehicles to achieve compliance with applicable emission standards over the vehicles’ full useful life. Therefore, EPA partially and conditionally granted Growth Energy’s waiver request for a gasoline-ethanol blend with up to 15 vol% ethanol. On January 21, 2011, EPA took further action on Growth Energy’s waiver request and granted a partial waiver for E15 use in MY 2001-2006 cars, light duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles, subject to the same conditions that apply to the partial waiver for newer light-duty motor vehicles.

* Partial waiver for use of E15 in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles | PDF Version (22 pp; 2.7MB; January 26, 2011)
* Fact Sheet: EPA Announces E15 Partial Waiver Decision | PDF Version (3 pp; 510K; EPA-420-F-11-003; January 21, 2011)
* Partial waiver for use of E15 in MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles | PDF Version (58 pp, 4.57M, published November 4, 2010)
* Status Update (July 2010)
* Status Update (PDF) (2 pp, 493K, November 30, 2009)
* Extension of Comment Period: Notice | PDF Version (2 pp, 75K, published May 20, 2009)
* Notice of Receipt of Waiver Application | PDF Version (3 pp, 77K, published April 21, 2009)

For further information or assistance, please contact Robert Anderson (anderson.robert@epa.gov) or at 202-343-9718.

North American Archaeological Dig

The National Science Foundation scientists and Alaska Natives collaborate on find of cremated child.

Newly excavated remains found at the Xaasaa Na’ archaeological site near the Tanana River in central Alaska may belong to one of the earliest inhabitants of North America.

The remains of an individual, estimated to be about three-years old at the time of death, may provide rare insights into the burial practices of Ice Age peoples, while shedding new light on their daily lives, according to a paper published Feb. 25 in the journal Science.

Researchers, who named the child Xaasaa Cheege Ts’eniin (pronounced hausau chag ts’eneen), which translates to “Upward Sun River Mouth Child,” based on a local native place name, said the remains would be the oldest found in Northern North America, as well as the second youngest Ice Age child on the continent.

The find also is notable because archaeologists and Alaska Natives are working hand-in-hand to insure the excavation and subsequent examination of the child’s remains.

Ben Potter, an archaeologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and his colleagues describe in the paper finding the skeletal remains in an ancient fire pit within an equally ancient dwelling near the Tanana River.

Radiocarbon dating of wood at the site indicates the cremation of the child may have taken place roughly 11,500 years ago, when the Bering Land Bridge may still have connected Alaska with Asia.

Initial observations of the teeth indicate the child is biologically affiliated with Native Americans and with Northeast Asians.

“This site reflects many different behaviors never before seen in this part of the world during the last Ice Age, and the preservation and lack of disturbance allows us to explore the life ways of these ancient peoples in new ways,” Potter says.

The researchers note both the burial and the house itself are the earliest of their kind known in the North American near-Arctic. They add that discovery of burial sites of this age in North America is very rare; the buried remains of children even more so.

“The discovery of the remains was unexpected,” Potter added.

In fact, it was an older occupation at the site–about 13,200 years ago–that first attracted the researchers to the site. Only while investigating this early occupation did the evidence of the burial come to light.

The initial excavation of the site was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs with funds awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

OPP’s Division of Arctic Sciences supports disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and broad, interdisciplinary investigations directed toward both the Arctic as a region of special scientific interest and a region important to global systems.

In the paper, the researchers note that the pit contained not only the child’s remains–the researchers estimate less than 20 percent of the skeleton survived the cremation–but also remains of small mammals, birds and fish as well as plant remains. Because the human remains were in the uppermost part of the pit, above the animal remains, the researchers suspect the pit was not originally designed as a grave, but evidence suggests the occupants abandoned the house after the cremation-burial.

Both researchers and tribal leaders agreed that the process of working together on this new find has fostered mutual respect and cooperation between them.

“This exciting, groundbreaking and multi-faceted research is in the best traditions of the research that NSF supports in the Arctic,” said Anna Kerttula de Echave, program officer in the NSF Office of Polar Programs who oversees this award. “Equally significant is that the approach taken by the researchers reflects the importance, in modern Arctic science, of collaborating with Native people as full partners in discovery.”

Potter and his colleagues’ excavation and analysis were sanctioned by the local federally recognized Tribe, Healy Lake Traditional Council and its affiliated regional consortium, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). Through consultation, initiated at the time of the discovery, Healy Lake and TCC support the scientific examination of both the site and the remains themselves.

“I would like to learn everything we can about this individual,” said First Chief Joann Polston, of Healy Lake Traditional Council.

TCC President Jerry Isaac added that “This find is especially important to us since it is in our area, but the discovery is so rare that it is of interest for all humanity.”

Although burned, some of the child’s remains may retain DNA. Isaac intends to have his own DNA compared to the find. Polston would like to expand the opportunity to any Alaska Native in the region.

Based on the stratigraphy–or examination of layers of materials in the fire pit–and other evidence, the researchers describe a possible sequence for how the remains came to be interred at the site.

They hypothesize a small group of people, which included adult females and young children, were foraging in the area in the vicinity of this residential camp, fishing and hunting birds and small mammals.

A pit was dug within a house, used for cooking and/or a means of disposing food debris for weeks or months preceding the death of the child.

The child died and was cremated in the pit.

The pit was likely filled with surrounding soil soon after the body was burned. The house was fairly soon abandoned, they concluded, due to the lack of artifacts found above this fill.

Potter noted the find is significant also because it crosses a number of disciplinary boundaries; the artifacts, features, stratigraphy, preservation, and the human remains. These finds allow for the integration and synthesis of stone tool technology, cultural affiliation, subsistence economy, seasonal use of the landscape, paleoenvironments and climate change at the end of the last Ice Age northern North America.

-NSF-

Media Contacts
Deborah Wing, NSF (703) 292-5344 dwing@nsf.gov
Marmian Grimes, University of Alaska Fairbanks (907) 474-7902 marmian.grimes@alaska.edu

Program Contacts
Anna M. Kertulla, NSF (703)292-7432 akertull@nsf.gov

Principal Investigators
Ben A. Potter, Unversity of Alaska Fairbanks (907) 474-7567 bapotter@alaska.edu

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

“the GOES-13 satellite, captures the massive winter storm currently affecting much of the United States” — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Big Storm USA

Based on the video, the hand uses high-speed actuators with harmonic drive gears. The hand can close in 1/10th of a second! Personally, I find the tweezers grasping the grain of rice the most entertaining — very anthropomorphic.

If you’d like to learn more about this (and other) robots from the Ishikawa Komuro Lab, see their website.