Part 3: Our nonexistent earthquake forecasting institutions
Posted by EQF on October 20, 2003 at 18:30:58:

This report in this series will talk about the three major earthquake forecasting institutions or resources.

These are personal opinions.

POPULAR EARTHQUAKE MYTHS

What people most often hear about earthquake forecasting might be the statements:

"Earthquakes can't be predicted."

and,

"The only earthquake prediction worth paying any attention to is one which includes accurate information regarding the time, location, and the magnitude of the expected earthquake."

As these three postings have proposed, both of those statements are not only badly out of touch with reality but are actually quite dangerous. They can get researchers and the general public moving in the wrong direction or encourage them not to move at all.

Here are several statements which I believe are accurate. And since I have been running my own earthquake forecasting program for some time I believe that I can make these statements as something of an authority on this.

An effective earthquake forecasting program needs the following:

1. Precursor Data - You need to have reasonably high quality and decipherable precursor data and/or a good computer model which enables you to generate forecasts based on patterns associated with past earthquakes etc. Having both available for comparison purposes would probably be the best thing. Any accurate data is worthwhile. It is not necessary for each individual data source to provide all three types of information: time, location, and magnitude.

2. Data Evaluation - There has to be a group somewhere which can collect and evaluate the precursor data etc., come to reasonable conclusions regarding possible approaching earthquakes, and then effectively distribute the information to the appropriate parties.

3. Evacuation Procedure - The most effective way to save lives when an earthquake is about to occur is to get people out of dangerous structures and into the open, or into safe temporary structures, or moved to some other location.

The only locations on Earth at this time where all three of those institutions, resources, or capabilities exist that I know of are in certain parts of the People's Republic of China. Greece might be next though I would probably regard them as a distant second. From what I can tell Japan is lacking in resources 1 and 2.

What about the United States?

Evacuation Procedure - In theory existing agencies such as FEMA and some state emergency services offices might be able to organize an evacuation procedure given enough time. But as far as I am aware this is something which has never been tested. So they would probably have to "play it by ear" as the saying goes.

There are no such procedures like that in place where I myself live as far as I am aware. Earthquakes are not a major problem here. And if board visitors living near active fault zones would like to comment on their own state's or city's ability to get such an evacuation organized and moving then please join in.

Precursor Data - It does not appear to me that we are completely lacking in available precursor data here in the U.S. Quite a few groups and individuals are collecting them. And data are also undoubtedly available from private researchers, groups, and government agencies in other countries. The main resource problem that I believe we have is with data collection, evaluation, and circulation.

Data Evaluation - As I proposed in the other notes in this series, there are no organized groups which I am aware of here in the U.S. which are interested in collecting precursor data etc. from different sources, evaluating them, and then distributing them to the appropriate parties. If I myself suspect that a significant earthquake might be about to occur here in the U.S. or that a really destructive one might be about to occur in another country I have to contact other forecasters across the U.S. and around the world on my own and discuss the matter with them.

As I earlier proposed it is as if it is "every man, woman, and child for himself or herself" when it comes to collecting, evaluating, and circulating earthquake forecast data. It is like having a baseball team which has no coaches or managers. Players are hired directly by the owners. And they are then expected to be individually responsible for selecting a place for themselves in the batting order lineup etc. Is it any wonder when the team owners then complain, "Why aren't we able to win any games (or predict any earthquakes)?" The answer is simple: "There is no one (with the necessary good sense of direction) in charge." And for the following reason among others this situation is not likely to change any time soon.

ALL OF THE AVAILABLE BASKETS ARE LABELED: "CAMPAIGN CASH"

From what I can see, the people who are supposed to be in charge have their attention 100% fixed on controlling the enormous wealth and political power which the U.S. and its various states and cities represent. Important projects such as keeping cities from disappearing when an earthquake occurs are often left largely to fend for themselves.

For example,

California recently held a recall election which according to one report I saw cost 58 million U.S. dollars. I suspect that if you took into account all of the time and energy, and campaign contributions etc. that went into it the total bill might have been something like 100 million dollars. And people seemed to be more than willing to pay whatever it took to have the recall.

What do you think might have happened if people in California had instead said, "Let's wait until the next regular election." And they then took that 100 million dollars and used it to provide funding for an independent organization which had the goal of constantly collecting and circulating information regarding the potential of different earthquake forecasting procedures being developed by private researchers, universities, and government agencies around the world, and the goal of collecting, evaluating, and circulating earthquake forecast information?

Here is just one example of an international forecasting program which they might have easily established:

A Demonstration Earthquake Prediction Program
http://home.netcom.com/~edgrsprj/124.html

Many others possible programs could be developed.

So, at the cost of perhaps 100 million dollars people living in California accelerated their election process by a few years. And now what do they have along earthquake forecasting lines which might enable them to keep a destructive earthquake from causing one of their cities and many of its voters to disappear?

There is little or nothing available along those lines as far as I can see. There are a few private forecasting programs here and there. But if I am the first person whom West Coast news service personnel call (I believe) when they want to know if an earthquake could interrupt the 2002 World Series baseball games, and I am presently doing this work simply as a very serious type of hobby and they know that, then you have to wonder about what level of confidence they have in any of the other forecasting programs.

The point is, and I have said this numerous times, it appears that you need to have some type of special interest group to get involved with this subject matter and move it forward. And getting resource # 2 developed is probably the most important at the moment. Money is obviously available as shown by the fact that in a relatively short period of time California voters and our political parties managed to devote perhaps 100 million dollars to a recall drive.

The problem is:

Forecasting earthquakes and saving cities and lives is simply not a top priority.

Gaining or retaining control of our nation's available wealth and political power apparently is!


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Part 3: Our nonexistent earthquake forecasting institutions - Don in Hollister  21:00:50 - 10/20/2003  (19796)  (1)
        ● Forecast Information sharing network - EQF  01:43:44 - 10/21/2003  (19800)  (1)
           ● I doubt this statement - John Vidale  05:43:37 - 10/21/2003  (19803)  (1)
              ● What else is new - EQF  17:47:06 - 10/21/2003  (19806)  (1)
                 ● scientists like information, not mysticism - John Vidale  19:03:07 - 10/21/2003  (19810)  (1)
                    ● Attempts at explanation - EQF  00:21:44 - 10/22/2003  (19820)  (1)
                       ● too vague - John Vidale  09:13:20 - 10/22/2003  (19824)  (1)
                          ● Re: too vague - Roger Hunter  18:48:14 - 10/22/2003  (19835)  (0)