The main thrust of MSNBC.com’s article is actually whether or not earthquakes happen in clusters, given the recent temblors in Japan, New Zealand, and Chile. A number of experts weigh in on the matter. The article jumps off from a column in Newsweek by Simon Winchester, the author of Krakatoa and books about geologic history, who argues that there is “little doubt” that earthquakes happen in clusters (the outlet also interviewed Winchester). Then it paraphrases Rundle, the earthquake expert from UC Davis, saying that while scientists have tended to view major earthquakes as impendent, and clustering as random, the recent string of forceful temblors worldwide has some asking about correlation. Then it quotes a geophysicist with the USGS saying, “There is no evidence of global large-earthquake clustering beyond localized aftershock sequences.”
The yes-maybe-definitely-not quotation strategy might leave the impression of he-said-she-said reporting, but the takeaway message from MSNBC.com’s work is that there is, in fact, plenty of doubt surrounding Winchester’s theory that earthquakes cluster. An article in The Boston Globe also does a good job explaining that while they “might seem like a powerful trend … geophysicists do not know whether the clustering of large earthquakes represents anything more than chance.”
Most of the articles cited above also mentioned that it is still impossible to predict earthquakes. What none of them provided, however, was a clear description of the research geologists and seismologists are are doing to improve their knowledge. A piece from Popular Mechanics stood apart in this regard, explaining that:
Despite decades of research, seismologists are still unable to predict these catastrophic events. Some experts fear they may be chaotic phenomena and hence fundamentally unpredictable. Instead, scientists focus on more attainable goals, deploying sensor arrays, satellite instrumentation and computer simulations to develop a clearer picture of how earthquakes happen, where they are likely to strike and how much damage they can do.
The article then goes on to describe a project called the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth, a sister program called the Plate Boundary Observatory, and finally, the Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table at the University of California at San Diego, each of which is providing new information about earthquake dynamics. In a similar fashion, Nature News distanced itself from the pack with an article explaining why “few experts thought the seismic zone off Sendai, Japan, was capable of such violence.” The piece focuses on what the event is teaching scientists about the relative earthquake potential related to subduction of old, versus new, oceanic crust.
These detailed accounts of ongoing earthquake research should guide more reporters. Articles about the statistical likelihood of earthquakes in California and how those quakes might compare to the one in Japan are fine, but readers would surely benefit from more specifics about how scientists know what they know and about how the Golden State is using that knowledge (or not) to safeguard the public.
The main thing that is right up there just by geography is AP talking about lack of preparation and lack of upgrades to basic functions--schools, hospitals, state and city buildings in many cases--all depending on where the epicenter of the quake is and the size of it.
We don't need both the earthquake and tsunami to make a total catastrophe of an 8.5 or 9.0 earthquake. Just one in that area right up the center of the state would put more than 10 MILLION people or more out of their homes if not first killed.
The curve of California will heighten or lessen the force of a tsunami if it were there in full force. Look at the damage done by the back flow of the one from Japan that hit Santa Cruz through Crescent City. Millions of dollars for each city and that doesn't count the cost of each of the boats hit and damaged or demolished or the fishing vessels in Crescent City. If it had been the total 40' tsunami here there would be no Santa Cruz nor Crescent City. Monterey would most likely have been damaged or destroyed but further south would vary depending on the epicenter. The Sierra Mountains would have saved many towns and cities since they are east of them and the tsunami wouldn't go over the mountain--just up further. San Francisco would have been hit and most of Pier 39 and everything north into downtown would be demolished though the newer and bigger buildings may stand--again depending on the epicenter of the quake.
California's problem is lack of preparedness. There are NO SHELTERS nor stores of food, water or basic medication as Japan had. They did quite well for 4-5 days which to me is amazing. They have fewer people so their numbers are smaller than ours in CA would be. CA doesn't have money set aside and waiting for money from Congress is like waiting for another earthquake--when and where will it end up??? Schools aren't prepared to cover thousands of people, levees could easily collapse and bring water down to flood anything from Napa to Fresno. Lovely thought!!
But the Republicans in the CA have sworn "no more taxes". Such a lovely way to prepare for disasters!!! We definitely are not prepared for one let alone both.
#1 Posted by Patricia, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 10:39 PM
I think reporting should use good science, but within a context of "existential" philosophy, as well. The unarguable fact is that no government, even with 100 percent accuracy in its predictions, and availability of the entire Gross National Product can protect inhabitants from a regional catastrophe; people expecting government protection during regional or continental crises are likely the same ones who thought Obama would bring hope and change.
That degree of confidence in government may not be "bad science" but it is definitely "bad History." The inevitable fact is that everyone who is alive today, will one day have died; only the time, place, and manner of the deaths are up for grabs. Judging from the general health of the American public, worries about death from a grand temblor should be somewhat low on the list of fears.
Perhaps good journalism might be to report the catastrophe of the day, make a statement that the government is powerless to improve things, and one might better hope that it stays out of events; and, finally report the "odds" of dying from something much more mundane than a perfect-storm of combined natural and manmade disaster, for example "Odds are that simply wearing your seat-belt, not texting while you drive, and driving sober will do more to prevent your early demise than will moving away from the San Andres Fault."
#2 Posted by BK, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 06:57 PM
When a good size earthquake occurs here in California the damage could be far worse than Japan. And not because Japan's engineering is superior. Japan was fortunate that the Tohoku megathrust was not the "Great Tokai earthuake" they have been waiting for the last 25 years. You must understand that the 9.0mw epicenter was 231 miles from Tokyo. Remember Kobe in 1995. It was a lot closer to the city. The 6.9mw quake did far more damage to the infrastructure.
Christchurch New Zealand suffered from the same hubris when it said after the 7.0mw hit in September of 2010. " Oh we won't have damage here like they had in Haiti because or buildings are superior blah blah" etc. And then on February 22 of this year an earthquake of 6.3mw annihilated the downtown area and killed more people than the 7.0mw. It was so bad some people vowed to leave and never come back. Each earthquake is unique.
When, not if, a devastating earthquake strikes say Los Angeles where I live it all depends on location location and did I mention location. Seismologists have stated many times that a >7.5mw near downtown Los Angrles could be worse than the" big one" initiating in the desert and roaring up the San Andreas fault.
When the 6.7mw Northridge earthquake struck In 1994 the vertical peak acceleration was 1.80g. Which was the highest ever recorded until Christchurch had a reading of 2.0g.
You don't necessarily measure earthquakes by magnitude alone. Smaller earthquakes can produce higher intensities which equals greater damage and loss of life especially if they are nearby.
When the next great earthquake, >8.0mw hits Japan it may not cause a tsunami if it's on land but may be devastating to Tokyo. Throw out the " yeah we're ready because our structures are better built and we're more prepared". The 9.0 mw produced peak acceleration of 2.99g. The highest I've seen for any earthquake. We don't want to think about what would have happened if it hit say 25 miles offshore from Tokyo.
o
#3 Posted by Phil, CJR on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 10:40 AM
Typo: Should say " Oh we won't have damage like they had in Haiti because our buildings are superior blah blah etc".
#4 Posted by Phil, CJR on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 10:51 AM