Tsunami Warnings Issued After Magnitude 8.7 Earthquake Strikes Off Russian Coast
Tsunami warnings and advisories were issues around the Pacific Ocean after a magnitude-8.7 earthquake struck off the coast of Russia, the largest earthquake since the 2011 Japan earthquake and resulting tsunami
By Andrea Thompson edited by
Tsunami warnings have been issued around the Pacific Ocean after a magnitude 8.7 earthquake struck off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula in the late morning local time on July 30.
The earthquake may be the eighth largest on record globally, seismologist Alice-Agnes Gabriel of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, wrote on Bluesky. It is likely the largest since the one that struck off the coast of Japan in 2011, triggering a devastating tsunami that killed thousands and caused the disaster the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Evacuations have been ordered in Japan and Hawaii after the July 30 earthquake. The U.S. Tsunami Warning System has issued warnings for Hawaii and along the Aleutian Islands. Advisories have been issued for the rest of the Alaska coastline and the rest of the Pacific Coast of the U.S.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The earthquake happened in a subduction zone at the Kuril-Kamchatka Arc, where the Pacific plate is being subducted under the Okhotsk plate. The epicenter is located 45 kilometers southeast of where a magnitude-9.0 temblor struck in 1952 and caused "a destructive, Pacific-wide tsunami," according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
A magnitude-7.4 earthquake that struck in the same region on July 20, 2025, would be considered a foreshock to the July 30 quake, the U.S.G.S. says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
10 hours ago
- UPI
NOAA says Gulf of Mexico dead zone is smaller this year
1 of 2 | This is a map of measured Gulf hypoxia zone, July 20 - 25. The red area denotes 2 mg/L of oxygen or lower, the level considered hypoxic, at the bottom of the seafloor. Image courtesy of NOAA/LUMCON/LSU July 31 (UPI) -- The Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" -- an area deprived of oxygen -- is smaller than previous measurements and forecasts, scientists supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday. The dead zone in the gulf is 4,402 square miles, 21% smaller than estimates from June. It's the 15th smallest measurement on record. That means that there are about 2.8 million acres of habitat in the gulf that is unavailable to fish and bottom-dwelling species. That's about 30% smaller than last year, according to a press release from NOAA. Each summer, the dead zone develops off the coast of the Texas-Louisiana shelf when nutrient-laden fresh water spills into the gulf. The nutrients typically come from crops that need the nutrients to grow. Nutrients brought in from the river contribute to the formation of a low-oxygen area along parts of the gulf's seafloor. Mobile fish and marine mammals can swim away from the low-oxygen area. But weaker swimming organisms can be trapped and die. Scientists at Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium led the annual dead zone survey July 20-25 aboard LUMCON research vessel Pelican. This annual measurement is an important metric that informs the collective efforts of the Mississippi River/Gulf of America Hypoxia Task Force, which has set a long-term goal of reducing the five-year average extent of the dead zone to fewer than 1,900 square miles by 2035. President Donald Trump's administration refers to the gulf as the Gulf of America. "This year's significant reduction in the Gulf of America's 'dead zone' is an encouraging sign for the future of this area," said Laura Grimm, acting administrator of NOAA, in a statement. "It highlights the dedication and impactful work of NOAA-supported scientists and partners, and serves as a testament to the effectiveness of collaborative efforts in supporting our U.S. fishermen, coastal communities, and vital marine ecosystems. We are proud of these achievements and remain committed to fostering the research and strategies that ensure the health and vitality of our oceans for generations to come." In June, NOAA predicted an average-sized dead zone of 5,574 square miles, based mostly on Mississippi River discharge and nutrient runoff data from the U.S. Geological Survey. The measured size fell within the uncertainty range for NOAA's forecast. While each NOAA-supported research survey offers a one-time snapshot of the dead zone, the five-year average captures the zone's changing nature over time. The five-year average size of the dead zone is now 4,755 square miles. In June 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency established the Gulf Hypoxia Program to accelerate nutrient reduction actions by the Hypoxia Task Force and advance its Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan. As a result, the Hypoxia Task Force member states are scaling up their nutrient reduction strategies. "The Gulf of America is a national treasure that supports energy dominance, commercial fishing, American industry, and the recreation economy," said Peggy Browne, acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Water, in a statement.
Business Wire
16 hours ago
- Business Wire
Vistagen to Report Fiscal Year 2026 First Quarter Results and Host Corporate Update Conference Call on August 7, 2025
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Vistagen (Nasdaq: VTGN), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pioneering neuroscience with nose-to-brain neurocircuitry to develop and commercialize a new class of intranasal product candidates called pherines, today announced it will host a conference call and webcast on Thursday, August 7, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) to report results for its fiscal year 2026 first quarter ended June 30, 2025, and provide a corporate update. The conference call is being webcast live, and a link can be found under ' Events ' in the Investors section of the Company's website. Please click on the webcast link and follow the prompts for registration and access at least 10 minutes before the call. The webcast will be archived on Vistagen's website shortly after the call and will be available for at least 90 days. For participants interested in participating in the call via dial-in, please follow the link below to pre-register. After registering, you will be provided with access details via email. About Vistagen Headquartered in South San Francisco, CA, Vistagen (Nasdaq: VTGN) is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company leveraging a deep understanding of nose-to-brain neurocircuitry to develop and commercialize a new class of intranasal product candidates called pherines. Pherines specifically and selectively bind as agonists on peripheral receptors on human nasal chemosensory neurons and are designed to rapidly activate olfactory bulb-to-brain neurocircuits believed to regulate brain areas involved in behavior and autonomic nervous system activity. They are designed to achieve therapeutic benefits without requiring absorption into the blood or uptake into the brain, giving them the potential to be a safer alternative to other pharmacological options if successfully developed and approved. Vistagen is passionate about developing transformative treatment options to improve the lives of individuals underserved by the current standard of care for multiple highly prevalent indications, including social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and multiple women's health conditions, including vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) associated with menopause. Connect at
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Why the Tsunami from Russia's Earthquake Wasn't as Large as Feared
Russia's magnitude 8.8 earthquake spawned serious tsunami warnings, but waves have been moderate so far. Here's the geological reason why Why the Tsunami from Russia's Earthquake Wasn't as Large as Feared The moment seismologists got word that a magnitude 8.8 earthquake had struck near Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula, they felt an acute sense of anxiety. This location—where the Pacific plate is plunging below an arm of the North American plate and in the vicinity of the Eurasian plate—can produce widespread, highly destructive tsunamis. It did just that in 1952, when a magnitude 9.0 quake effortlessly washed away a nearby Russian town while also causing extensive damage in far-off Hawaii. When the seafloor next to Kamchatka violently buckled at 11:24 A.M. local time on Wednesday (7:24 P.M. EDT on Tuesday), everything seemed primed for a dangerous tsunami. Early forecasts by scientists (correctly) predicted that several countries around the Pacific Ocean would be inundated to some degree. Millions of people were evacuated from coastal Japan, and many in Hawaii were ordered to seek higher ground. People across swaths of Central and South America were also advised to flee from the receding ocean. And as an initial smaller tsunami formed on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, there was some preliminary concern that waves could reach a height of nearly 10 feet. But for the most part (at the time of writing), plenty of countries in the firing line didn't get hit by an extremely lethal wall of water. It appears that waves of just more than four feet hit Japan and Hawaii—two locations that have now significantly downgraded their tsunami alerts and rescinded some evacuation notices. One tourist in Hawaii told BBC News that 'the disaster we were expecting did not come.' Parts of California have seen water up to eight feet but without considerable damage. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] READ MORE: Tsunami Warnings Issued after Magnitude 8.8 Earthquake Strikes off Russian Coast This raises a key question: Considering that the Kamchatka oceanic megaquake had a magnitude of 8.8—one of the most powerful ever recorded—why wasn't the resulting tsunami more devastating? The answer, in short, is this: the specific fault that ruptured produced pretty much exactly the tsunami it was capable of making, even if we intuitively feel like the effect should have been worse. 'First, it's important to recognize that the issuance of any warning at all is a success story,' says Diego Melgar, an earthquake and tsunami scientist at the University of Oregon. A tsunami doesn't have to be 30 feet tall to cause intense destruction and death; even a relatively modest one can wash people and structures away with ease. So far, it looks like there won't be a high number of casualties—and that's in part because 'the warnings went out, and they were effective,' Melgar says: people got out of danger. It's also fair to say that, for Kamchatka and its surroundings, there actually was some localized destruction. The earthquake itself severely shook the eastern Russian city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and did scattered damage to buildings there. And tsunami waves reached heights of up to 16 feet in Severo-Kurilsk, a town in the northern Kuril Islands just south of Kamchatka. Houses and sections of a port have been wrecked or swept out to sea. READ MORE: Russia's 8.8 Earthquake Is One of the Strongest Ever Recorded The way each nation issues a tsunami warning differs slightly. But in general, if a tsunami is very likely incoming and is thought to be potentially dangerous, an evacuation order for those on the afflicted coastline is issued. When such alerts go out, some tsunami-wave-height estimates are often given, but these numbers are initially difficult to nail down. One reason is because, when a tsunami-making quake happens, 'the tsunami energy is not distributed symmetrically,' says Amilcar Carrera-Cevallos, an independent earthquake scientist. A tsunami does not move outward in all directions with the same momentum because faults don't rupture in a neat linear break. Nor does the seafloor movement happen smoothly and in one direction. 'Initial warnings are based only on the estimated size and location of the source, but this alone doesn't determine how much water is displaced or where waves will concentrate,' Melgar says. 'To forecast impacts accurately, scientists need to know how much the fault slipped, over what area and how close to the trench the slip occurred.' And that information is usually gleaned one or two hours after the tsunami has appeared. A tsunami like today's is tracked by a network of deep-ocean pressure sensors, which helps scientists update their forecasts in real time. But 'the network is sparse. It doesn't always catch the full complexity of wave energy radiating across the basin,' Melgar notes. This means it gives scientists only a partial understanding of the ocean-wide tsunami. Another issue is that a tsunami's wave height when the wave reaches the shore is influenced by the shape and height (technically called the bathymetry) of the seafloor it's passing over. Tsunamis are also hindered, or helped, by the shape and nature of the coastline they slam into. 'Features like bays can amplify wave heights; tsunami waves can also be diffracted (bent) around islands,' says Stephen Hicks, an earthquake scientist at University College London. It may also be tempting to compare today's magnitude 8.8 quake with the 2011 magnitude 9.1 quake that struck off eastern Japan, triggering a tsunami with a maximum wave height of 130 feet—one that killed more than 15,000 people. The 2004 magnitude 9.1 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean—which claimed the lives of more than 280,000 people across a vast area—may also come to mind. That's understandable, but today's magnitude 8.8 quake was not quite powerful as one might think. The magnitude scale for earthquakes is not linear; in other words, a small increase in magnitude equals a huge jump in energy unleashed. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a magnitude 9.1 quake (like the 2011 Japanese example) is nearly three times stronger than today's. The 2004 and 2011 cataclysms 'were actually quite a lot larger than this event,' says Judith Hubbard, an earthquake scientist at Cornell University. They were simply more capable of pushing a giant volume of water across the ocean than today's temblor. Not knowing the exact height of an incoming tsunami at multiple locations all around the Pacific, though, is a secondary concern. What matters most is that the tsunami warnings went out to those in harm's way quickly and accurately conveyed the times at which the tsunamis would arrive at each coastline. 'The current strategy of preventative evacuation does a good job of saving lives,' Hubbard says.
