Ah! So you live west of Palo Verde. That's inland from Fukushima. Well, at least you would have been further away from the tsunami and closer to the earthquake. Which reminds me...

In measuring earthquake sizes, they use something called the Richter Scale. Every number in the Richter Scale is 10 time larger in magnitude than the previous number. So a Richter magnitude of 2 would be 10 times larger than a 1. And 3 would be 10 times larger than a 2. This would make 3 to be 100 times larger than 1, right? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_scale.

HERE'S WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Why is it that the Richter of the earthquake that caused the tsunami must have been almost a 9 on the Richter Scale, while the damage done inland (out of reach of the tsunami) was only the damage of a 6.5 earthquake?

You might say, well, 9 is only about 2.5 numbers higher 6.5. But on the Richter Scale, that same 2.5 means over 300 times the magnitude. So what gives? Why is the inland damage 300 times less than the coastal damage? Or to say it the other way...

WHY WAS THE TSUNAMI 300 TIMES LARGER THAN THE EARTHQUAKE THAT CAUSED IT?

Could it be that someone set off some nukes in a deep-sea trench, off the coast of Japan, to cause a 9 tsunami, while covering their operation with a natural 6.5 earthquake that happened to coincide with the timing they needed for their blast(s)? Why might someone want to take out some Japanese nuclear power plants... at the cost of the life and health of the whole nation of Japan?