Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5078

Directory

In article <50sjvi$26i@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, 
suerealtor@worldnet.att.net says...
>>I don't understand this "window" stuff. Is Turi a shaman?
Nope.  
Dr. Turi is a duck.  
I've not seen it walk, 
but it sure goes, 
"Quack, quack, quack!"

mikejm@westworld.com wrote:
> 
> Is there any difference between a "slow earthquake" and fault creep
> (or is it spelled kreep?)
It's creep.  And I think we are looking at a continuum of
phenomena from brittle failure in earthquakes through
continuous creep.  The slow earthquakes are in effect a
period of localized faster than usual creep.  However,
from the point of view of understanding fault mechanics
it is interesting to know how often different things along
the continuum happen because it can help us understand
the processes that control the response of the fault to
strain.
Andy

For those interested: Iakopi's update of Sunset's old Earthquake Country
book is out now, and I just picked up the copy I ordered from Stacey's
here in Palo Alto. Looks pretty informative, and is updated through the
Northridge and Kobe quakes.
Doesn't include those great aerial photos with the pink swatch through
them, though, so my area of Daly City is no longer in there. Since a
lot more houses have been built in that band that was colored pink...
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

>From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
>Subject: NEXT WINDOW SEPT.11TH, 1996
>Newsgroups: sci.geo.earthquakes
>Date: 6 Sep 1996 07:14:14 GMT
>Organization: Dr. Turi
>Xref: moe sci.geo.earthquakes:7201
>Path: moe!usbr.gov!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!castle.nando.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsadm
>Lines: 113
>Message-ID: <50oj06$ahg@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 160.san-diego-1.ca.dial-access.att.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7
>
Turi said:
> -- Unless you know better than the great scientist do not bother to 
>read the following :)  I am sure some believe they do know better than 
>Ritcher and will start to blast their ignorance all over this group! 
>(or on my private E-Mail).
>
>Honor the word science (INVESTIGATE the dates!) and be patient.
>
>.
>RICHTER SAID Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have
>to be regarded a trifle more seriously, since there is evidence that
>tidal forces may occasionally act as triggers for earthquakes
>otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the date and hours
>of occurrence ( occurrence -two r's) may show a slight statistical
>correlation with the tides.
In 1958 Richter said it was important to evaluate if tidal forces
might correlate with the occurrence of earthquakes. Subsequently,
there have been many investigations that have shown that there
are no statistically significant correlations between tidal stresses
and the occurrence of large (M > 6) tectonic earthquakes. A weak
correlation was found between the occurrence of small (M < 3) volcanic
and induced (usually geothermal production related) earthquakes.
In summary, Richter didn't say there was a correlation. Richter never
claimed that he had found strong evidence for such a correlation. He
suggested that a correlation might make some physical sense and
further investigation was warranted. Subsequent investigations found
no significant correlation between tidal stresses and significant
earthquakes.
That's how science works. Someone suggests a physical mechanism, it's
investigated, and it usually doesn't pan out. Famous scientists
propose many invalid hypotheses. They're usually famous because
every once in awhile they propose important valid hypotheses.
Turi
(1) You should try to at least format your posts so they don't
    look like garbage. The almost random line breaks make it difficult
    to read.
(2) Don't post in sci.geo.earthquakes when you aren't discussing
    earthquakes. (Some of you other recent posts.)
Dan (I speak for no organization) O'Connell
geomagic@seismo.usbr.gov
http://www.seismo.usbr.gov
Seismotectonics Group, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box 25007 D-8330, Denver, CO 80225
"We do custom earthquakes (for food)" 
                  or 
"Just more roadkill on the information superhighway"
                   /\
                  /  \
                 /    \        /\            /\
    /\          /      \      /  \          /  \    /\  /\/\  /\/\
___/  \  /\/\/\/        \    /    \    /\  /    \  /  \/    \/    \  /\_______
       \/                \  /      \  /  \/      \/                \/
                          \/        \/
FIAT: Oozing rust from every pore, it disintegrated across the floor...
(Proud owner of auto-recycling FIAT)
-- 
Dan O'Connell
geomagic@seismo.usbr.gov
Seismotectonics Group, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

I have one now.  Thanks!
-- 
Darlene A. Cypser                          
dcypser@netcom.com   dcypser@nyx.net	(303) 938-9903		
http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/home.html	P.O. Box 2187, Boulder, CO 80306

Mary Corman wrote:
> 
> An article on the front page of our local newspaper ("Valley Times"
> - Livermore, CA, 9/5/96) and attributed to the "Los Angeles Times"
> is about slow-motion earthquakes that last hours or days. Specifically
> it describes a 1992 movement of the San Andreas Fault over a period of
> a week to 10 days that was equivalent to a 4.8 earthquake but was so
> slow that it didn't generate conventional seismic waves. 
snip 
Did this happen around the same time of the Landers and Big Bear quakes? 
If so, would it have had any direct effect on them?
-terri

In article <510bmp$ktk@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) wrote:
> WELL! Large quakes/explosions and surprises are for Sun-Mon; 
> Sept.8th/9th.
> >Watch the dates posted for September Supernova month posts.
> 96/09/09 00:20:38  31.99S  71.39W  38.6 6.1Mb A  NEAR COAST OF CENTRAL 
>  ON MY WINDOW AS PREDICTED!  
> >Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
> >
> >September 2nd - 
> >September 11th -
> >September 17th-
> >September 29th-
You posted a "window" centered on September 2nd, and another centered on
September 11th.  The event you cite is OUTSIDE both of those windows, by
over 35 hours.
It is thus YET ANOTHER FAILURE of your predictions, since you did not
predict anything for September 8th/9th until after that date.
I predict that there will be a very large earthquake near San Francisco
in April 1906.  So what?
-- 
** Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.**
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, Calif. *  LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com

In article <50u11e$kiq@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (Mr. Turi) wrote:
> How could I miss?  Wait for the 11th of Sept. first, then see if I 
> missed!!
Very simple.  You missed because you have REPEATEDLY claimed that ALL
major earthquakes fall on your "windows."  A magnitude 7.1 quake fell
on September 5th, completely OUTSIDE your windows.  That is a MISS.  It
is not a small miss.  It is a major miss, a complete and abject failure
of your "windows."  Magnitude 7.1 earthquakes do not happen every day,
nor even every week, but they DO happen OUTSIDE your "windows."
Every time you completely fail to predict an earthquake accurately, you
simply say, "Oh, but I have another prediction -- wait and see!"  We
have seen more than enough failed predictions to say unequivocally that
you are a fraud and a charlatan.
-- 
** Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.**
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, Calif. *  LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com

In article <510c8m$ktk@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) wrote:
> >> Here is the dates and  please PRINT THEM!
> >> 
> >> September 2nd - 
> >> September 11th -
> >> September 17th-
> >> September 29th-
> >
> >That must explain why there was a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on September
> >5th, completely and totally OUTSIDE any of your windows.  (So much for
> >your claim that ALL major quakes fall on your windows.)  
> 
> MAJOR SNIP!!!WELL! Large quakes/explosions and surprises are for 
> Sun-Mon; Sept.8th/9th.
The magnitude 7.1 earthquake still fell COMPLETELY OUTSIDE your windows,
even when you added several additional windows to cover 1/3 of the entire
month.
You have claimed that ALL major quakes fall on your windows.  This is a
major quake that fell OUTSIDE your window.  Therefore, your claim is FALSE.
You did not have a window in operation for the largest quake of the last
few weeks.
Turi, you are a fraud and a charlatan.  It has been abundantly proven.
-- 
** Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.**
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, Calif. *  LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com

In article , geomagic@seismo.usbr.gov says...
>
>Turi said:
>
>> -- Unless you know better than the great scientist do not bother to 
>>read the following :)  I am sure some believe they do know better than 
>>Ritcher and will start to blast their ignorance all over this group! 
>>(or on my private E-Mail).
>>
>>Honor the word science (INVESTIGATE the dates!) and be patient.
>>
>>.
>>RICHTER SAID Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have
>>to be regarded a trifle more seriously, since there is evidence that
>>tidal forces may occasionally act as triggers for earthquakes
>>otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the date and hours
>>of occurrence ( occurrence -two r's) may show a slight statistical
>>correlation with the tides.
>
>In 1958 Richter said it was important to evaluate if tidal forces
>might correlate with the occurrence of earthquakes. Subsequently,
>there have been many investigations that have shown that there
>are no statistically significant correlations between tidal stresses
>and the occurrence of large (M > 6) tectonic earthquakes. A weak
>correlation was found between the occurrence of small (M < 3) volcanic
>and induced (usually geothermal production related) earthquakes.
>
>In summary, Richter didn't say there was a correlation. Richter never
>claimed that he had found strong evidence for such a correlation. He
>suggested that a correlation might make some physical sense and
>further investigation was warranted. Subsequent investigations found
>no significant correlation between tidal stresses and significant
>earthquakes.
>
>That's how science works. Someone suggests a physical mechanism, it's
>investigated, and it usually doesn't pan out. Famous scientists
>propose many invalid hypotheses. They're usually famous because
>every once in awhile they propose important valid hypotheses.
>
Dear Sir - Thank you for the valuable information - However who ever has 
done the research do not have all the answers. Mainly because the 
traditional education is limited to the five rational senses.  The 
intuitional domain of my work has much to offer in term of "Cyclonic 
reasonances" for those willing to devote some of their time in the 
investigation of my work.  A different attitude and an open mind would be a 
major contribution to establish the reality behind my "windows".   Might be 
with time and that's why I am still there for people like you, showing an 
healthy curiousity and a practical desire for mental exploration.
>further investigation was warranted. Subsequent investigations found
>no significant correlation between tidal stresses and significant
>earthquakes.
This hypothesis is obviously wrong and the proofs has been posted many times 
on this group.  Just a few posts (I have tons of them).
Turi
>
>(2) Don't post in sci.geo.earthquakes when you aren't discussing
>    earthquakes. (Some of you other recent posts.)
>
>Dan (I speak for no organization) O'Connell
>geomagic@seismo.usbr.gov
>http://www.seismo.usbr.gov
>Seismotectonics Group, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
>Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box 25007 D-8330, Denver, CO 80225
>"We do custom earthquakes (for food)" 
>                  or 
>"Just more roadkill on the information superhighway"
>
>                   /\
>                  /  \
>                 /    \        /\            /\
>    /\          /      \      /  \          /  \    /\  /\/\  /\/\
>___/  \  /\/\/\/        \    /    \    /\  /    \  /  \/    \/    \  
/\_______
>       \/                \  /      \  /  \/      \/                \/
>                          \/        \/
>
>FIAT: Oozing rust from every pore, it disintegrated across the floor...
>(Proud owner of auto-recycling FIAT)
>-- 
>///@seismo.usbr.gov
>Seismotectonics Group, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
X-POP3-Rcpt: drturi@daffy
Return-Path: 
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: ///d@fastlink.net>
Organization: Earthquake Essentials
To: drturi@cgl.com
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 19:05:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Mexico City Quake 7/15
Reply-to: ///uakesafe.com
Priority: normal
I noticed that today's window was most notably recognized in Mexico City.
////
111 south 24th street west
billings, mt 59102
////@quakesafe.com
800.334.4118
-------------------------
X-UIDL: 824597360.000
From:///@aol.com
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 13:29:11 -0500
To: drturi@goodnet.com
Subject: Predictions for 1996
Content-Length: 188
Please forward me your predictions for 1996. I was very impressed by the 
accuracy of the
past few of your "windows", especially this most recent one 
(earthquake/explosion).
(Feb.16)
-------------------------
From: ////2@ix.netcom.com>
To: drturi 
Subject: Re: RED ALERT JULY 30TH
References: <4tenc3$63q////sc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 96 20:14:09 +0000
 Don't know 
what your using for predictions but keep it up, it's useful.
------------------------
@haven.ios.com (////wick)
Subject: 8.0 Indonesia Quake, 21 ft Tidal Waves
Date: 20 Feb 1996 00:03:16 GMT
Organization: Internet Online Services
8.0 QUAKE JOLTS INDONESIA: 21 Foot Tidal Waves Recorded
JAKARTA, Indonesia -- A magnitude 8 earthquake struck Saturday, Feb 17th in 
eastern
Indonesia, causing tidal waves up to 21 feet high, according to the 
Associated Press. An
earlier report by Reuters placed the tidal waves at six to thirteen feet 
high. The waves
destroyed many bridges and washed away 600 homes, many built on stilts. 
Thirty people
are confirmed dead and the number is expected to rise. The quake was under 
the ocean
floor sixty-eight miles east of Biak Island, located north of Irian Jaya 
(the western half of
New Guinea.) Scores of aftershocks have occurred averaging 3 to 4 in 
magnitude, with
one aftershock approx. 6.7, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Three 
foot high
waves were measured as far away as Japan. Damage on Biak Island is estmated 
at more
than $4 million.
Not Copyrighted - Post Freely
Thank You,
///@aol.comPath: news.goodnet.com!usenet
Dr. Turi
///@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: ""  (Return requested)
Subject: Request for 1996 Top Universal Predictions
Content-Length: 603
          Kudos to you Dr. Turi!
     I surf the Internet periodically for predictions on forthcoming events, 
specifically
relating to earthquake activities. You hit the 11/22/95 Egypt/Israel/Saudia 
Arabia 7.2
quake smack dab on  the head, per your earlier prediction. Congratulations 
again! If
possible, I would really appreciate your sending me a copy of your "free" 
1996 Top
Universal Predictions.  My email address is:    
gerald.t.@ccmail.jpl.nasa.com
     Keep up the good work.           Appreciatively,   
//--------------------------------------
USGS - Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com -sender
news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) -Dr. Turi 
Newsgroups
-  sci.geo,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes,hkbu,geog.maps - WEEKLY USGS Quake
Report 9/28-10/4/95 - in articleDG1t4H.v@goodnet.com>Oct
6h, 1995 drturi@goodnet.com says...
>From Dr. Turi - Dear Sirs: -  On Oct.8th and Oct.9th a very unusual seismic 
activity
will be noticeable and will produce many quakes above 6.1. More information 
are
available pertaining to my method if requested.  
Respectfully
Dr. Turi        
SUBJECT: RE:  Weekly USGS Quake Report
Full proofs of predictions:  
Oct. 8th a 7.0 EARTHQUAKE HIT SUMATRA (INDONESIAN ISLANDS)
Oct. 9th a 7.6 EARTHQUAKE HIT MEXICO ARIZONA AMTRAK TRAIN
TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE POSTED "WINDOW" - A VOLCANOE ERUPTED
ON THE SIBERIAN COAST AND THREE TORNADOES HAPPENED "MID-WEST" 
ON THOSE DAYS.
-------------------------
X-UIDL: 819577372.005
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "E.W. @euler.cpi.com>
Organization:  Computational Physics, Inc.
To: drturi@goodnet.com
Date:          Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:20:37 EST
Subject:       1996 predictions
Content-Length: 805
Please send 1996 predictions.
I am new to the alt.disasters.earthquake group as of 12/19.  I was very 
impressed with
your prediction for 12/14, since here in Washington DC area we had an 
extremely
UNUSUAL situation in the late hours of the 13th and early hours of the 14th 
with one 25-
30 chain reaction accident in Springfield VA, one 15-20 car accident on the 
I495 beltway
in VA, another 5-6 car accident in Fairfax VA and too many 2-3-4 car 
pile-ups to count. 
Police were telling motorists to pull off any road they were on into the 
nearest parking lot
and just sit.  NO POLICE WOULD BE AVAILABLE, as all were busy.  
Chain-reaction 
accidents are rare here, and while there was sleet falling, it was  lite by 
any standards,
and at a low traffic period (11:30PM, 13th to 2:00AM, 14th).
Regards, Chap
----------------------------
*************18-loss of prominent race car drivers/boxers
X-POP3-Rcpt: drturi@daffy
Return-Path: 
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 01:37:09 -0400
From: @aol.com
To: drturi@cgl.com
Subject: Re: 1996 Universal Predictions correction
<< 18-loss of prominent race car drivers/boxers >>
During the Indianapolis 500 qualifying round, driver Scott Brayton was 
killed in a devastating crash.   Kevin Flanagan (kpfindh@aol.com)  Thanks 
Kevin!Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From:@netcom.com ()
Subject: Re: FORECAST (Dr. Turi)
Message-ID: 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4khs02@bugs.cgl.com>

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:12:33 GMT
Lines: 14
Sender: @netcom2.netcom.com
 In article <4///2@bugs.cgl.com>, drturi@cgl.com (Dr. Turi) wrote:
: > Next negative "window" is for Wednesday 17th -12 hours 04/16/96 thru 
04/18/96.
: > Surprises and nasty earthquakes are to be expected.
I don't know who Dr. Turi is - but we just had an earthquake here in Los 
Angeles. Time: 11:10 a.m. Date: 4/18/96.
-- 
                        /////

hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>For those interested: Iakopi's update of Sunset's old Earthquake Country
>book is out now, and I just picked up the copy I ordered from Stacey's
>here in Palo Alto. Looks pretty informative, and is updated through the
>Northridge and Kobe quakes.
I picked up a copy this weekend also - great book! This edition (4th,
now published by Fisher Books)) looks like a total re-write compared
to the 1st and 3rd editions I already have. Ya, too bad  the 'red
line' maps got left out, but all the new stuff hopefully makes up for
it. I have travelled a couple of hundred miles along those 'red line'
map routes though,  from Parkfield all the way  through the Carrizo
plain, till just north of the Grapevine (Grocer Grade (?)). Also El
Centro to Brawley (took a more recent photo straddling the  highway
stripes - twice the offset shown in the 1966 picture on pg 57 of the
3rd edition. (4th edition only shows the 1940 picture on pg 100), and
through the Painted Canyon near Mecca/so. of Indio. I guess I'm glad I
still have the older editions to use as a guide for my next 'fault
finding' trip - they sure have been fun - thanks again Robert Iacopi!
Stackman

I have decided to drop this newsgroup. I used to enjoy coming here and
reading the postings. However, this group has been consumed the same way
the alt.prophecies.nostrodamus has, which I have also dropped. Thanks
for an enjoyable couple of years. Please do not respond, I will not be
here to read it.
-- 
Ed

Lucy Jones wrote: 
> What you are really talking about here is not publication of
> a finding but when that information gets in the general media.
> You must remember most of our results never get in the general
> media and we are not in the habit of trying to get the general
> media to cover every result. If scientists had thought this was a
> precursor then there probably would have been a big to-do.
As a refugee from newspaper and magazine journalism, I agree that 
there seems to be no effort here to hide news. As a writer of 
nonfiction books, including my present project on earthquakes, I can 
vouch that it takes two or three years to research and write a book 
and at least another nine months to get it set in type, printed, and 
distributed to the public‹‹a much greater length of time than it takes 
to get a journal article published, I would guess. 
However, what distresses me about this field, and what might perhaps 
be bothering Mary Corman, is the vast amount of time that 
seismologists spend communicating with each other, through these 
obscure journals, and how little they bother explaining in a clear 
fashion what they are doing that might be of interest and helpful to 
the general public. Unfortunately, lucid writing on the subject 
disappeared when seismographs made their appearance and seismologists 
became number crunchers.
Philip L. Fradkin
filfrad@nbn.com

Among the dozen new free promotional CD-ROM offers just added to the
website maintained by the CD-ROM Users Group, is one from a company
offering  geotechnical and geo-environmental software. Looks like a
powerful suite of applications. 
You can reach the FREE CD-ROMS site at:
http://www.west.net/~cdromug
Go have some fun. FB

In article <3234915B.770C@nbn.com>, Philip L. Fradkin  wrote:
>Lucy Jones wrote: 
>> What you are really talking about here is not publication of
>> a finding but when that information gets in the general media.
>> You must remember most of our results never get in the general
>> media and we are not in the habit of trying to get the general
>> media to cover every result. If scientists had thought this was a
>> precursor then there probably would have been a big to-do.
>
>As a refugee from newspaper and magazine journalism, I agree that 
>there seems to be no effort here to hide news. As a writer of 
>nonfiction books, including my present project on earthquakes, I can 
>vouch that it takes two or three years to research and write a book 
>and at least another nine months to get it set in type, printed, and 
>distributed to the public‹‹a much greater length of time than it takes 
>to get a journal article published, I would guess. 
Some refereed journals take as long as 18 months from time of
submission to publish articles.  There are also "fast track"
journals that get information out in a more timely manner without
as thorough a review process.
>However, what distresses me about this field, and what might perhaps 
>be bothering Mary Corman, is the vast amount of time that 
>seismologists spend communicating with each other, through these 
>obscure journals, and how little they bother explaining in a clear 
>fashion what they are doing that might be of interest and helpful to 
>the general public.
This is a cheap shot.  The US Geological Survey and the California
Division of Mines and Geology both put a lot of effort into
outreach, and there are a lot of seismologists in both organizations
who volunteer their own time to bring their science to the public.
Remember that "communicating with each other, through these
obscure journals" is how scientists do their creative work.
If literary merit is to be our criterion for excellence in
seismology, we might do just as well to keep teaching the
best-written classics in the field - even though they
don't cover the current state of the art.
>Unfortunately, lucid writing on the subject 
>disappeared when seismographs made their appearance and seismologists 
>became number crunchers.
I can think of three or four good counterexamples among
participants in this very forum.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <513b97$grf@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
|> In article <3234915B.770C@nbn.com>, Philip L. Fradkin  wrote:
Stuff deleted
|> 
|> >However, what distresses me about this field, and what might perhaps 
|> >be bothering Mary Corman, is the vast amount of time that 
|> >seismologists spend communicating with each other, through these 
|> >obscure journals, and how little they bother explaining in a clear 
|> >fashion what they are doing that might be of interest and helpful to 
|> >the general public.
|> 
|> This is a cheap shot.  The US Geological Survey and the California
|> Division of Mines and Geology both put a lot of effort into
|> outreach, and there are a lot of seismologists in both organizations
|> who volunteer their own time to bring their science to the public.
|> 
|> Remember that "communicating with each other, through these
|> obscure journals" is how scientists do their creative work.
|> If literary merit is to be our criterion for excellence in
|> seismology, we might do just as well to keep teaching the
|> best-written classics in the field - even though they
|> don't cover the current state of the art.
|> 
|> >Unfortunately, lucid writing on the subject 
|> >disappeared when seismographs made their appearance and seismologists 
|> >became number crunchers.
|> 
|> I can think of three or four good counterexamples among
|> participants in this very forum.
|> --
The real issue that is missed is what is the job?  If a 
seismologist were to spend their time answering every 
question that came up or communicating to the general 
public, then there would be very little time for original
research.  While I think communications with the general 
public should be improved; however someone has to pay for it.
For example, TV stations employ meteorologists to explain what
is happening with the weather.  Their job is to communicate 
the science to the public.  There is no equivelant for
seismologists.  While the USGS does have some seismologists
whose job is partially to communicate, the media does not have
staff seismologists.  
Furthermore, the use of jargon in "obscure journals" is often
understandable by other seismologists.  If one where to try to
write the same thing with out jargon (so that the "general public"
could understand), then the length of the articles would grow 
expontially.  Remeber, Jargon is a short hand notation used to 
describe a concept that is understood by the audience.  For example,
if I write "Moment Tensor" to a seismologist, most would understand.
For the general public, I would need to expand those two words to 
several sentances (which I all not do now).
David
-- 
David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.

Philip L. Fradkin (filfrad@nbn.com) wrote:
: However, what distresses me about this field, and what might perhaps 
: be bothering Mary Corman, is the vast amount of time that 
: seismologists spend communicating with each other, through these 
: obscure journals, and how little they bother explaining in a clear 
: fashion what they are doing that might be of interest and helpful to 
: the general public. Unfortunately, lucid writing on the subject 
: disappeared when seismographs made their appearance and seismologists 
: became number crunchers.
My first reaction while reading the local article about the 1992
slow-moving earthquake was to wonder why nearby residents weren't
told about the recorded earth movement so they could check for any
possible leaks in sprinkler system pipe connections, etc., Those
often take some time to discover (until large water bills arrive).
Persons living in towns don't have to dig up pipes to check if 
the meter shows no water running when all faucets are off. But 
movement of a 4.8 earthquake might shift a pipe enough to loosen 
a connection whether the movement is fast or slow.
My concern wasn't about the time it takes for long-term research,
debate and publication of that research. It was that if motion 
equivalent to a 4.8 earthquake was recorded within a period of 
a week or 10 days, why was it kept secret?  If no movement could 
have reached the surface to affect walls or foundations (which 
I know from personal experience can both be damaged by undetected,
slow water leaks), the public should have been told that too.
If any notice was published at the time of that event or of any 
similar ones, the article in our paper didn't say so. Don't USGS 
responsibilities include public information? Not everyone living
near a fault reads Usenet, and this newsgroup didn't exist in 
1992. But everyone is concerned about their personal safety and 
property, and when USGS discovers facts that would let them know 
when to check for damage, I believe that information should not 
be withheld for publication several years, or even weeks, in 
the future. Whether it was deliberate secrecy or not, it might
give that impression to taxpayers.
-- 
Mary Corman    
mcorman@netcom.com     marycorman@aol.com    tybg72a@prodigy.com

Al Chan (alchan49@cris.com) wrote:
: Why is it that Foster City, Calif, suffered little damage for the last
: 30 years since the city was built on mud flats; whereas the surrounding
: cities experienced much more damages?
Well, this doesn't have anything to do with mantle viscocity, but it's
an interesting question...what I've heard is that most of Foster City
is built on 'engineered fill', which is mud flats that are filled in
in a way that supposedly lessens the earthquake risk (I don't know 
exactly how this works...anybody?).  I've also heard that ground motion
recordings of Loma Prieta did suggest a lower level of shaking than
other, non-engineered artificial fill sites.
The other possibility is that Foster City has gotten some lucky breaks
with regard to earthquake focal mechanism and/or precise propagation
paths/effects in the small number of big earthquakes to affect the Bay Area.
Sue, speaking for myself

> : For the prize behind curtain 2, when did the base 9 new millenium take
> : place, assuming all counting started at the present base 10 year 1? 
> : Anyone?
> 
> Why, in the year 2001, of course!  (I wrote the answer using base 9 
> digits for you convenience... ;)
> 
> In base 10, the answer is equal to 2*9^3+1, or the year 1479, by the
> Roman calendar.
Why, if it began in 1479(Roman Calendar), it can hardly be the beginning
of the *new* millenium(base 9), can it?
I'd say the new millenium(base 9) is 3001(base 9) which is 2188(base 10).
Eric

In article  mcorman@netcom.com (Mary Corman) writes:
 > My first reaction while reading the local article about the 1992
 > slow-moving earthquake was to wonder why nearby residents weren't
 > told about the recorded earth movement so they could check for any
 > possible leaks in sprinkler system pipe connections, etc.,
Maybe it was because there was no need, since no damage would be
expected?   Do you have any evidence to suggest that such damage
occurred as a result of this earthquake?  Or are you just making much
ado about nothing?
 > My concern wasn't about the time it takes for long-term research,
 > debate and publication of that research. It was that if motion 
 > equivalent to a 4.8 earthquake was recorded within a period of 
 > a week or 10 days, why was it kept secret?  If no movement could 
 > have reached the surface to affect walls or foundations (which 
 > I know from personal experience can both be damaged by undetected,
 > slow water leaks), the public should have been told that too.
Why?  Do you really want to be informed about all earth movements that
don't affect the surface of the earth?  I suppose one could arrange to
automatically EMail you thousands of "don't worry about damage from
earth movement X" reports, but I would hardly imagine that would be
useful. 
 > If any notice was published at the time of that event or of any 
 > similar ones, the article in our paper didn't say so. Don't USGS 
 > responsibilities include public information? Not everyone living
 > near a fault reads Usenet, and this newsgroup didn't exist in 
 > 1992.
Most newspapers have a moderator (ie editor) -- unlike this newsgroup --
whose job it is to decide what information should go in to the paper at
any particular time.
If you think this is so important, you could volunteer to regularly scan
the on-line near-real-time seismic activity reports and send out such
press releases on your own.
 > But everyone is concerned about their personal safety and 
 > property, and when USGS discovers facts that would let them know 
 > when to check for damage, I believe that information should not 
 > be withheld for publication several years, or even weeks, in 
 > the future. Whether it was deliberate secrecy or not, it might
 > give that impression to taxpayers.
Again, what rational basis do you have for asserting this bizarre
conspiracy theory?  Why do you think there were any personal safety or
property damage issues involved at all?  It's been four years, can you
cite any damage or injury or anything at all related to this event?  If
you can't then I'm quite happy having the USGS spend their money on
furthering their understanding of the earth's geologic processes and not
on producing press releases that say basically:
  "We detected a curious phenomenon that nobody could feel and that
   wouldn't cause damage."
Even if such a press release were issued I doubt a newspaper would
bother running it.
-- 
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute          tar@isi.edu    

> Learn how to make "Kufta"
Does preparation of "Kufta" cause an unusual loading on HVAC systems?

In article <511ega$lav@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu
writes: 
>In article <50qvsg$nuk@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, gentryd@pipeline.com
writes: 
>>When something is kept quiet for so long, it is natural for  
>>suspicions to arise.  
>>  
>>It would have been better if it had been published in science, or  
>>some other such piece of literature, with an acknowledgement that  
>>the mechanics weren't known but that it was being studied.  
>>  
> 
>This isn't "keeping quiet". This is the reality of how long it takes 
>to publish a paper.  I have written a lot of papers about specific 
>earthquake sequences. I just looked back through several of them 
>and see an average of 2.5 years between the sequence and publication 
>of the paper. And I'm considered quite quick at it. 
But then it took Frazier-Smith about a year, give or take a couple 
of months, to report his findings on the Parkfield 5.0 of Dec. '94. 
>As for getting the word out before the paper was completed--that 
>was done in this instance, too. I heard about this quite a while 
>ago and in a paper I wrote over a year ago (but only published this 
>spring), I mentioned this finding and referenced an abstract 
>published in 1994. 
But then the general public doesn't know about these published 
abstracts nor where to find them if they do know about them. 
I wonder why I've never heard of the paper that you published 
this last spring? 
>What you are really talking about here is not publication of  
>a finding but when that information gets in the general media. 
>You must remember most of our results never get in the general 
>media and we are not in the habit of trying to get the general 
>media to cover every result. If scientists had thought this was a 
>precursor then there probably would have been a big to-do. 
>If it was to be a precursor, most of us would have thought 
>the earthquake would happen in a day or two.  In fact, the spin 
>on this has mostly been that not only have we never seen a true 
>precursor, even when we see the type of thing we theorectically 
>thought should be a short-term precursor, still nothing happens. 
Recently we had the extra movement going on up on the Calavaras 
fault (or was it the Hollister?).  At any rate, this extra rate 
of fault creep was known, I don't know how the public found out 
about it, but Andy did say that they didn't know what this extra 
movement implied (if it implied anything at all).  The biggest 
reason that Andy gave was that they just didn't have enough 
historical data to make a call one way or the other.  Myself, I 
don't see anything wrong with that.  We are all still observing 
and learning. 
Information doesn't need to wait on having all of the i's dotted 
and the t's crossed.  If something is being observed, it doesn't 
hurt for the public to be aware that something is being observed 
thru some press release. 
Did a panic situation happen with the Calavaras movement?  No. 
If anything, people probably got themselves a little more prepared. 
Regards, 
Dennis

Several of the posts in the original thread seem to have quite an odd view
of how scientific outreach works; it sounds like several posters believe
that the news media will eagerly reproduce any information given to it by
the USGS or other scientists.  I'd like to go beyond the usual "science is
slow-moving and cautious" explanation (which is still pretty valid) a bit to
discuss how some information does make it into the popular media.
In general, it is quite difficult to interest the media in anything other
than "breakthroughs" and breaking news.  Thus a M3 earthquake in Beverly
Hills, while of little or no scientific importance, will make the newspaper
in LA and, on slow news days, the national news.  A M5 on the East Pacific
Rise will not make the news.  A creep event that may not have been noticed
for days or weeks after the event is unlikely to make news as it is no
longer breaking news; once you have passed out of that realm, you are
looking to convince the science reporter (or, occasionally, a local interest
reporter) that you have something unusual.  Several faults in the S.F. Bay
area exhibit creep and I suspect most of the owners of buildings directly on
the faults are pretty aware of the possible problems creep causes. 
Buildings off the fault are unaffected by creep.  Hence a major effort by
the USGS to alert people to creep on a fault that has been creeping in the
past is probably counterproductive, causing worry among those with no need
to worry while providing little new information for the few directly
affected.  The only reason this particular creep episode made the news was
the possibility it has some predictive utility.
By the ways, publication in scientific journals can hardly be considered
"secret".  These are publicly available in many university libraries--no
background check required!  They may be obscure in some ways, but I think
they are more accessible to the general public than the full U.S. tax code.
Science moves forward in baby steps.  Every month a few hundred articles are
published in professional journals on earth science (journals like Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, Journal of Geophysical Research,
Geophysical Research Letters, Seismological Research Letters, EOS, Geology,
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, Tectonics--just to name a few--you can see abstracts
from some of them through links on
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/jones.craig/Online_Journals.html).  In
contrast, there is perhaps 1 story/week or less on earth science in any
particular media market--and that is usually (as in this case) a high
profile paper in Science or Nature (which each have only 1-3 earth science
papers/week).  I doubt very much that you'd want to see articles in your
morning paper on the latest from JGR and BSSA.  Condemning scientists for
writing these papers rather than popular versions with the same information
is a bit silly--would you prefer your surgeon to learn heart surgery from a
Readers Digest article?  Advancing science is meticulous work.  While there
are certainly lots of papers that could benefit from aggressive editorial
pruning, forcing professional readers to wade through repeated sections of
Geology 101 text to get to the (relatively) miniscule improvement on the
science would slow things down and probably not attract a large readership
to these journals.
There are a couple of popular science type magazines that have a fair amount
of earth science (Earth magazine pops to mind, and Discover has been paying
some attention to earth science).  What other forms of outreach are there
for the earth scientist who would like to share her or his results with the
public?  Electronic sharing is being done more and more--look at the lists
of web sites posted here regularly.  Newspapers are the most likely mass
media--T.V. and radio are rarely interested in any but breaking stories or
things already pumped within the print media.  And newspapers follow the
"breaking news or news of a breakthrough" philosophy.
How does anything reach your morning paper on earth science?  There are two
main paths: (1) paper is published in Nature or Science, both of which send
out press releases on significant articles to targeted reporters and media
outlets or (2) paper is presented at a professional meeting where somebody
points the press at the paper (AGU in San Francisco generates a story a day
for a week in December this way).  In either case, this release might be
followed by a more targeted release made by the press officer or office of
the institution of the lead author (hopefully with the help of the author!).
(In the case I've most recently been involved in, the press officer actually
lobbied some science reporters he knew to cover our story).  Some papers
will simply publish the press release if there is something that catches
their eye and they have space; other's reporters will contact the author and
maybe write something up themselves (often using the press release as a
first draft).  Quite frequently the science gets pumped up in the process of
giving the reporter enough background to understand the story, obscuring the
real step forward in favor of making the scientist sound like they
discovered electricity.  (This last has given many scientists who have made
the news headaches as other scientists may believe that they were taking
credit for far more than they did--I know of a few cases where this has led
scientists to avoid talking to the media for fear of professional ridicule).
In my case, I had a paper in Nature on measurements of gravitational
potential energy in the western U.S. that indicated that this source of
energy was capable of driving the diffuse deformation in the western U.S. 
It happens that we used a "thin viscous sheet" model for estimating the
deformation rates--a model I chose to explain to our press officer as
analagous to a mass of molasses.  Turned out that the inclusion of this
analogy--which was an analogy to previously published work we were using as
a tool--made a bunch of papers decide to carry the story.
This can be quite a time sink for the scientist, too.  You might spend a
hour on the phone with a reporter for a two-paragraph story--or one that
gets killed anyways.  Multiply by the number of papers or magazines
considering doing an original story, add in time with the press office, and
this can pile up.  In addition, media people, while often quite polite, are
under severe time pressures that do not permit much delay.  Thus if you want
coverage, you'd better hang out near your phone.  If you aren't at the
phone, they rarely call back twice (for instance, a TV station and radio
station were interested in the Nature paper but I and both of my coauthors
were away from the phone when they called--by the time we called back, just
over an hour later, they were no longer interested!).
A drop anywhere in the chain to media coverage will prevent publication of
science that might be interesting.  If the scientist is turned off by the
media (and the ambush journalism I actually have seen used by TV and radio
people on seismologists explaining a "breaking story" has made many
scientists quite retiring), nothing will happen.  If the press office isn't
interested (e.g., the scientist is missing that "hook" or simply doesn't
offer good quotes), nothing will go out.  If the story competes with
virtually anything else, it is usually lost, especially if there is not a
perception of a "breakthrough" (or a new dinosaur, which is the great
exception to the rule).  If the local science reporter is inept, the editor
will kill the story.
With that lengthy diatribe out of the way, what could be done to improve
things?  There are stories that probably would be of interest that are not
covered presently.  (One that comes to mind are some recent analyses of the
"seismic gap hypothesis" that are showing that revered idea as coming up
short, at least in the short run, on delivering the goods).  If the
newspaper syndicates could invest in one or two earth-savvy reporters who
could understand that stuff in all those professional journals, they might
actually FIND the news rather than require it to be handed to them.  That
would help short-circuit the lengthy chain I've described above, and it is
not unreasonable (there are now medical reporters who are paying some
attention to the medical journals in this way).  Scientists need to overcome
fears of appearing self-important and try to get the word out when they have
a word to share.  Some press offices need to be more helpful and less
judgmental.  And it wouldn't hurt if readers let their papers know they like
seeing these stories (did the original poster write her paper asking why
they missed covering this story??).
If any of the critics of how scientists attempt to reach out to the public
have any better ideas, please let us all know.  I know of NO scientist who
would not like the folks at the grocery store to understand what she or he
does.
Craig Jones                                    cjones@mantle.colorado.edu
      Research Associate, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder
WWW: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/jones.craig/CHJ_home.html

In article <513uhn$39m@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
  wrote:
>In article <511ega$lav@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu
>writes: 
>>In article <50qvsg$nuk@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, gentryd@pipeline.com
>writes: 
>>>When something is kept quiet for so long, it is natural for  
>>>suspicions to arise.  
>> 
>>This isn't "keeping quiet". This is the reality of how long it takes 
>>to publish a paper.  I have written a lot of papers about specific 
>>earthquake sequences. I just looked back through several of them 
>>and see an average of 2.5 years between the sequence and publication 
>>of the paper. And I'm considered quite quick at it. 
> 
>But then it took Frazier-Smith about a year, give or take a couple 
>of months, to report his findings on the Parkfield 5.0 of Dec. '94. 
Different journals, different policies, different delays.
Abstracts for talks often show up as soon as six months after
an observation.  On the other hand, they're not reviewed and
the findings reported in the abstract are often retracted
in the actual talk.
There are fast-track journals like Physical Review Letters
and, to a lesser extent, EOS that get can information
out quickly.  It's up to the reader to recognize that this
information may not be as reliable as what's published after
a full review.
>But then the general public doesn't know about these published 
>abstracts nor where to find them if they do know about them. 
> 
>I wonder why I've never heard of the paper that you published 
>this last spring? 
That's a question for a science journalist, not for a scientist.  If
the information is published ANYWHERE, it's not being hidden.
It's the journalist's job to keep track of what's important and
what's generally interesting.  Scientific organizations like the
USGS and JPL have active press offices, so the obviously
provocative stories don't slip through the cracks.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

Lots of damage happened in Foster City and San Mateo.
It's not the sort of damage that makes buildings fall down,
but it's quake related nonetheless.
One year ago, our business facility (which is located right
at the intersection of hwy 92 and 101) had some sewage leak
problems.
The contractor encased the leaky sewage pipe in cement.
The leak got _worse_ and only after the cement was set did
the contractor discover that the sewage pipe had been broken
and offset by the earthquake many years prior.  The
cement "sealant" merely made this broken pipe incredibally
hard to fix properly.
Months later, a completely new sewage pipe was installed
after chipping the old cement/pipe combination out of the
ground.
There's lots of quake damage in San Mateo and Foster City.
In many places, the roads undulate due to simple landfill 
settling.  A few good quakes will settle the land
some more, most of the damage is broken underground pipes.
I wonder how far they had to sink the supports for those 10
story office buildings out in Foster City.  In New Orleans,
for example, they had to go 650 feet through mud to bedrock,
and that wasn't for earthquake safety...that's just to keep
the building from sinking into the mud.