Zenkutsu is right to point this out: the seismicity section as good as states that the long-anticipated "big one" that seismologists have predicted for Tokyo has now occurred. This is highly misleading, and anyway, a simple statement of magnitude without context is not instructive.
There is also a problem, I think, with the use of the term "earthquake proof buildings", and with the conclusion that they held up better in some way. The Hanshin earthquake in 1995 caused more extensive structural damage within the metropolitan area of Kobe/Osaka than this latest earthquake did in the Tokyo metropolitan area, though they would be similarly vulnerable or resistant to quakes (16 years is not a sufficient period for complete overhaul of earthquake standards and building infrastructure), so obviously something else is at work there. The difference in the magnitudes of the two quakes is enormous, but the smaller one, Hanshin, caused far more damage to its respective metropolis (and the damage and death toll gives an idea of what even stronger shaking could do in the Tokyo area). It's fair to say that buildings in Japan generally hold up much better than buildings in other countries, especially when comparing with those that are less wealthy or have traditional styles of architecture that takes little account of earthquakes - examples of that kind of damage have been seen in Iran, China, Haiti, and many others. But that's a different issue. The paragraph overlooks and indeed contradicts some basic earthquake fundamentals.
And comparing today's buildings to 1923 may not be all that valid either: it's not just "earthquake proof buildings" that affect what happens during an earthquake, but better awareness of fire safety, fewer wooden buildings (the vulnerability that caused Tokyo's almost total destruction twice in the 20th century), and modern firefighting techniques. This isn't well covered by the adjective "earthquake proof".
I do think this section of the Tokyo page is in need of a full overhaul. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to do it. It's one thing to know that what I'm reading is wrong, and quite another to express it correctly and put it up there. But I hope someone with better knowledge can get to it, and quickly.
Zenkutsu is right to point this out: the seismicity section as good as states that the long-anticipated "big one" that seismologists have predicted for Tokyo has now occurred. This is highly misleading, and anyway, a simple statement of magnitude without context is not instructive.
There is also a problem, I think, with the use of the term "earthquake proof buildings", and with the conclusion that they held up better in some way. The Hanshin earthquake in 1995 caused more extensive structural damage within the metropolitan area of Kobe/Osaka than this latest earthquake did in the Tokyo metropolitan area, though they would be similarly vulnerable or resistant to quakes (16 years is not a sufficient period for complete overhaul of earthquake standards and building infrastructure), so obviously something else is at work there. The difference in the magnitudes of the two quakes is enormous, but the smaller one, Hanshin, caused far more damage to its respective metropolis (and the damage and death toll gives an idea of what even stronger shaking could do in the Tokyo area). It's fair to say that buildings in Japan generally hold up much better than buildings in other countries, especially when comparing with those that are less wealthy or have traditional styles of architecture that takes little account of earthquakes - examples of that kind of damage have been seen in Iran, China, Haiti, and many others. But that's a different issue. The paragraph overlooks and indeed contradicts some basic earthquake fundamentals.
And comparing today's buildings to 1923 may not be all that valid either: it's not just "earthquake proof buildings" that affect what happens during an earthquake, but better awareness of fire safety, fewer wooden buildings (the vulnerability that caused Tokyo's almost total destruction twice in the 20th century), and modern firefighting techniques. This isn't well covered by the adjective "earthquake proof".
I do think this section of the Tokyo page is in need of a full overhaul. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to do it. It's one thing to know that what I'm reading is wrong, and quite another to express it correctly and put it up there. But I hope someone with better knowledge can get to it, and quickly.