Japan Earthquake (plus) Earthquake Precursors (plus) When Science Fails
Posted by EQF on June 24, 2011

JAPAN EARTHQUAKE

The following strong earthquake occurred several days ago.

2011/06/22 21:50:48 39.98N 142.24E 32 6.7 Japan Area
NEIS Data

A strong EM Signal that looks like it was clearly pointing to the approach of that earthquake was detected at the following time.

2011/06/21 08:44:00 UTC

These days, unless several strong EM Signals are detected within a few hours of one another I am usually not circulating a formal Earthquake Warning or Advisory. That is because it is too difficult to propose exactly when the earthquake is going to occur. It could be delayed by days, weeks or months. However, when two of those signals are detected within a few hours of one another there is perhaps a 75% chance that the approaching earthquake responsible for them will occur within the next 5 days. And an Earthquake Warning might be circulated in response.

The similar structure of the line peak groups on the following chart shows why it is believed that that EM Signal was pointing to the approach of the Japan earthquake.

It is fairly rare that an EM Signal pattern will so closely match an earthquake pattern like that.

As people are aware, the following very powerful Alaska area earthquake just occurred:

2011/06/24 03:09:40 52.00N 171.85W 63 7.2 Alaska Area

There were one or more low intensity EM Signals that appeared to clearly be pointing to its approach. However, a quick check has not identified any recent strong EM Signals that match the earthquake. And that and other types of information are gradually allowing the following picture to be formed regarding the earthquakes and EM Signals.

It appears that when some especially powerful earthquakes are approaching they themselves might not be generating strong EM Signals during the several days before they occur. Or, the signals are being generated at times of the day when I am not able to detect and record them.

What it appears might be happening is that the approaching especially powerful earthquakes are creating a disturbance in the Earth’s geomagnetic energy field. It can last for hours or even days and is probably responsible for at least some of the other types of precursors that people observe before powerful earthquakes such as unusual animal behavior, atmospheric heating, and earthquake clouds.

That energy field is then interacting with fault zones such as the one where that 2011/06/22 Japan earthquake occurred. And those secondary fault zones are then causing the strong EM Signals to be generated.

That same type of geomagnetic energy field disturbance is believed to also be resulting from solar storms, volcanic eruptions, and other phenomena such as hurricanes.

So, the latest theory is that for a strong EM Signal to be generated there has to be an energy source that causes a disturbance in the Earth’s geomagnetic energy field. And then there has to be a fault zone somewhere where an earthquake is about to occur that the energy field can interact with under the right conditions and cause the EM Signal to be generated.

EARTHQUAKE PRECURSOR LIST

This is a project that I have simply not had time to get organized. And it doesn’t appear that anyone else is having any success with this.

The project involves creating a Web page where different types of earthquake precursors are discussed that people might observe before a powerful earthquake occurs near them.

As my Web site bulletin board gradually gets more advanced, this project is getting closer to a start date.

WHEN SCIENCE FAILS

This is a new project that I am now strongly considering getting organized. It involves getting a book written that explains why governments etc. cannot get important things done such as the creation of effective earthquake forecasting programs or the development of major new sources of environmentally safe, affordable energy.

There is already a book with the name “When Science Fails.” So a different name would probably have to be used. I have not read the existing book. But from descriptions of its content I have seen I would say that this proposed new book would go into much more detail regarding why so many important science projects are basically going nowhere.

One of the main problems with science research clearly appears to be the following:

These projects have to be organized and run by scientists. However, people usually go into those areas of science that are the most interesting to them. And they try to avoid areas of science that they don’t like.

The result is that attractive areas of science such as high energy physics have an abundance of researchers. Yet there are relatively few scientists interested in working in many important areas of science such as nuclear waste management. And there are undesirable direct and indirect consequences of that.

1. With few experts in some area of science to work on a given project, little gets done.

2. With few experts in some area of science, there will often be no one willing or able to go to government officials and demand that various types of action be taken and research funds be made available. And again as a consequence, nothing gets done.

Contrast that with popular areas of science such as space exploration that have in the past received tremendous amounts of government financial support and have had strong interest within the scientific community.

I don’t have the time or the resources needed to write such a book by myself. So, I am going to start looking around for a co-author or co-authors to assist with the project.

At least one of those people will need to have a degree in psychology or some similar field. This is because it will be necessary to have someone involved who has a professional level of understanding regarding why people in general and scientists in particular are motivated to move in certain directions and not others, and an understanding of how government officials, people in the scientific community, and the general public interact with one another.

If this book writing effort is successful then it might provide all three of those groups with some practical guidelines regarding how to establish government priorities for what types of scientific research should be scheduled for funding etc.

On the other hand, if establishing government science funding priorities continues to be determined largely by what is of interest to people in the scientific community then important projects such as earthquake forecasting and dealing with nuclear waste will likely never get the type of attention that they need to have.