Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5262

Directory

In article <323B2349.2324@nbn.com>, Philip L. Fradkin  wrote:
>Chuck Karish tells me that research scientists have to stick to their 
>"mission-oriented projects" because they are not paid to follow "their 
>personal moral imperatives." Boy, something is wrong here.
Not the least of it the twisting of what I said.
The text I replied to said that research scientists should be
overseeing the work of engineers and development planners.
I said that researchers have their own jobs to do, and that
when they offer advice to other professionals it's often
done out of personal concern.
If there's inadequate communications between researchers and
engineers it's because there's a structural problem in the
discipline, not because individual scientists are shirking
their civic responsibilities.  Nothing I've seen in this thread
indicates to me that such a problem exists, at least at the
level indicated by the panicy tone of some of the messages I've
just read.
The quote from the NRC report has more relevance to communication
between the scientific community and the general public than between
researchers and planners.
>Why am I meeting such total resistence from people whose addresses 
>indicate they are part of the scientific community, and why are they 
>the only ones replying to my query?
Because we're conspiring to hide the fact that the sky is about
to fall.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

Ken Navarre wrote:

> I for one will argue to try to convince the readers of the newsgroups
> that it is THEIR responsibility for what they read...

The issue facing the participants is whether they want to
come to these groups to post and read about any imaginable
subject or whether the group's charter actually means something.
The day I pick up the Wall Street Journal and find the National
Enquirer inside is the day I'll argue along side you Ken.
Richard

Chuck Karish wrote:
> 
> Many of us would like to have a place to express our
> ideas without contradiction and without being set alongside
> obvious fools.  If you want to make such a place, go ahead.
> I'd expect it to be terminally boring.
> 
> --
> 
>     Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
>     (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Not planning on place like that.  If someone needs a forum to
communicate their ideas without contradiction, they can put
up their own web page.
Richard

Henry wrote:
> 
> Ronald E. Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Year 2000 is the end of a millenium, the year 2001 is the start of the
> > next millenium.  So, the world peace crowd has an extra year to get their
> > act together. :)
'xactly. The Islamic world is still in the Middle Ages (in more than one
sense...); something like 1350 or so, I believe. The Buddhists are advanced
(again, I tend to think they have a point); something like 2200. Japan is
currently in the year 8, in words: *eight*.
So, what gives? All this 2000 hullaballohh seems to make very little sense.

Philip L. Fradkin wrote:
> 
> In response to Bill Smith, I don't want to popularize earthquakes, I
> just want to understand them. (Interesting choice of word,
> popularize.) I don't think the scientific community has been very
> effective in addressing anyone who, like myself, is not part of the
> group.
Big assumption #1.  I am not part of a "group".  I am a lurker who
stumbled onto this group about a year ago, and am quite happy reading
and attempting to understand the discussions among those who have
made geoscience (is that the right term?) their life's work.  I
am distracted by the nonscientific noise, not because of it directly,
but because it seems to diminish the discussion in which I find
great, if casual interest.  I believe I have a different idea of
earthquakes that what I understood before reviewing information
here, and I hope you, Philip, can gain the same benefit I have.
> 
> But let me quote from the National Research Council's report,
> "Practical Lessons from the Loma Prieta Earthquake," 1994:
> 
> "Engineers and scientists have a poor record of packaging their
> research results and transferring their knowledge to the public."
> 
Different context at best.  You can talk to the engineers and scientists
here.  They have carefully responded to the basest of questions, and 
have usually managed to throw in quite a bit of useful information.
How does it serve you to grab a wild generalization like that and 
wave it around here?  How long have you monitored this group?  This
platform is unique in that you can really stand next to research as
it is happening.
> and:
> 
> "Then there is the latest buzz word in the technology world,
> 'technology transfer.' When someone has developed technical
> information containing knowledge on a subject, that knowledge is not
> automatically transferred by presenting a paper on the subject."
This seems an abstract concept that again does not seem to find
a good example in this newsgroup.  Quite a bit of knowledge is 
transfered here in "mini-papers".  I have thought of trapping them
and (with proper credit) assembling them in a publication.  They
are that good.
Perhaps you should hang around a bit before leaping to some conclusion
based on some  "expert" summary from some other activity.
I am beginning to believe you are trolling.
> 
> Chuck Karish tells me that research scientists have to stick to their
> "mission-oriented projects" because they are not paid to follow "their
> personal moral imperatives." Boy, something is wrong here.
> 
No, they have their work to do, and others to answer to.  Upon what
presumption do you base your conclusion "something is wrong"?
Do you walk down the street telling other people what to do?
> As to Bill Smith's suggestion, I am embarked on just such a project,
> as stated in an earlier posting.
Well, then, what are you doing spending all your time whining?  
Have you asked for books to read, have you asked if there is a FAQ
(frequently asked question post)?  Have you bothered to explore an
archive, even a simple one as Alta-Vista?  Have you organized your
approach?
I really don't care, your response doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
If you have any "working questions", THEY belong in this group, not your
unfounded complaints.
> 
> Why am I meeting such total resistence from people whose addresses
> indicate they are part of the scientific community, and why are they
> the only ones replying to my query?
You are imagining things.  First of all you have created a straw-man,
no one is resisting you.  Secondly, you are incorrect; I, for one am
not part of the scientific community, nor does my address indicate I 
am. Thirdly, you have only attacked and provoked, you haven't asked
any questions which might contribute to your project.  Fourthly,
you haven't listened.  Fifth, drop the assumption that any one
else is going to do your work for you.
>
> Are there other laypersons out
> there who might have some thoughts on this subject? Help!
> 
You betchum.  I am about as "lay" as they get.  My thoughts?  Get on 
with what you want to do and stop this drivel.
> Philip L. Fradkin
> filfrad@nbn.com
73 de Bill, AB6MT
bilsmith@crl.com

dennis.van.paassen@tip.nl ((((NEWS)))) wrote:
>Our planet last week is a weekly journal about natural disasters,
>global pollution, and natural and environmental topics in common.
>You can subscribe yourself for free to a weekly email copy. If you
>are interested just sent an email message to:
>                           dennis.van.paassen@tip.nl
>                     and fill in "SUBSCRIBE" as subject
>   You can also visit the State of the Earths Website at url:
>          http://www1.tip.nl/users/t000208/index.htm
>State of the Earth Magazine --- The Creators of Awareness!!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tropical Storms
>------------------------
>The powerful thyphoon Sally killed at least 114 people and damaged
>over 200.000 houses when visiting the Chinese Province of GuangDong.
>Later the storm was headed towards the northern part of Vietnam, where
>it killed one person and blew away 100 houses.
>+++
>The results of Fran's damaging Job did become visible last week.
>In the State of North Carolina the material damage was estimated at
>1.2 Billion Dollars. The other states surrounding North Carolina are
>now recovering from some heavy floods. Caused by the enormous
>amount of rain wich Fran brought.
>+++
>The hurricane Hortense visited Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and
>other isles in the Carribean, killing at least 22 persons. At this
>time it is headed to the eastcoast of the United states, but meteoro-
>logists are pretty sure that it won't cause trouble anymore.
>+++
>Fausto brought storm and rain to the Bay of California and created
>flood - situations in the desert areas of the southwestern parts of
>the United States.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>EarthQuakes
>--------------------
>The northern part of Japan was hit by an earthquake of 6.6 on the
>scale of Richter. Also Tokio felt the shock.
>+++
>The Earth also moved in Taiwan (5.9), Indonesia (5.1), Nicaragua (5.1)
>Chili (6.1), Germany (4.8) and south of San Francisco (3.8).
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ozon Layer
>--------------
>The hole in the Ozon Layer above the south-pole, wich comes and
>goes every year, is expected to set a new record this year. According
>to testing results of a japanese team of scientists wich are based on
>the south-pole, the hole is bigger than any year before. The concen-
>tration of Ozon in our Stratosphere is decreased with 45-75 percent.
>The hole is expanding very quick.... for example.... it did reach the
>southern part of Argentina one month earlier than it usual does.
>+++
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article appeared in news.groups, but regrettably, it was not 
cross-posted to s.g.g and s.g.e.  It contains important factual information 
which should be considered carefully by those currently engaged in pulling
those newsgroups apart.
Followups set appropriately.
Russ
=============================================================================
In article <1996Sep13.210316.16063@giant>, cwestbury@giant.intranet.com
(Chris Westbury) wrote:
> In article <323998DC.36D9@oro.net>,
> Richard Adams  wrote:
> >
> > Being aware of the fact that my above crosspost may not appear for a
> > while, I posted the RFD to the groups that should be involved in the
> > discussion, which is the correct procedure when a reorganization is
> > specified.
> 
> No, that is _not_ the correct procedure.
> 
> The correct procedure is to wait until the RFD appears in the specified
> newsgroups.
> 
> Note particularly the following excerpt from "How to Format and Submit a
> New Group Proposal" in news.announce.newusers at your site:
> >
> > Messages intended for news.announce.newgroups should not publicly
> > appear anywhere -- not in news.groups or other groups, not on mailing
> > lists -- before they are published in news.announce.newgroups.  The
> > time of publication of an article in news.announce.newgroups is the
> > official time by which the beginning of each stage of the group
> > creation process is measured.  The admonishment against submitting the
> > message elsewhere is to combat confusion that can be caused by it,
> > especially if some discussion with the group-advice crew leads to a
> > change in the proposal.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Westbury, Midtown Associates, 15 Fallon Place, Cambridge, MA 02138

Henry wrote:
> 
> Ronald E. Thomas wrote:
> 
> > Year 2000 is the end of a millenium, the year 2001 is the start of the
> > next millenium.  So, the world peace crowd has an extra year to get their
> > act together. :)
> >
> 
> All this 2000 business seems to be of religious significance only so
> I'll
> address it as such:
> 
> 1) Conventional wisdom says that Jesus was born on Dec 25 0001AD, so
> 2000 years won't be up until Christmas day 2000.
> 
> 2) With all the Creationists cluttering up this NG I'm surprised that
> nobody's pointed out that the earth is alledged to have been created in
> 4004 BC on (I think) the twenty-somethingth of September, which means
> that the earth will be 6000 years old next week!
> 
> Perhaps all the religious posters here can amuse themselves organizing
> a 6000 year birthday party for the planet. And all these religous
> threads can end after that.
> 
> Henry
> 
> P.S. I'm not going to hang around waiting for the geochronologists to
> organize the 5000000000 year party.
Party Pooper
		I am.
			Cheers
				Oliver

In article <323870BE.7974@oro.net>, Richard Adams  
wrote:
>>REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) 
>

>                    
>Newsgroup lines:
>sci.geo.earthquakes               Seismic events and predictions.
>sci.geo.geology                   Geological Science.
>sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world   Seismic events worldwide.
>sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions   Predictions of seismic events.
>
>RATIONALE: sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
>
>This discussion includes California and the world.  It is the place
>to read and post nearly everything on the earthquakes topic with
>world wide news coverage including California.
I will vote AGAINST a moderated sci.geo.earthquakes group.
I may vote FOR a sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions unmoderated
newsgroup.  Although I am concerned the usual suspects will cross post
to the regular earthquake groups.
If the vote wins I will not monetarily support sci.geo.earthquakes.
Mike
http://www.hooked.net/~mwcoen/

Andy Michael  wrote:
M>Philip L. Fradkin wrote:
M>> All true. My comment was addressed to the fascinating information that
 >> I find tucked away in the obscure journals that serve the profession
 >> which could be of interest to a wider audience. The article that comes
 >> immediately to mind was one by Bonilla on the history of filling in
 >> the Marina district. That sent me to the Bancroft library today in
[snip]
 >> Francisco had recovered from the 1906 quake. Could not Bonilla, or
 >> someone at the USGS, reworked the article that appeared in the
 >> Bulletin of the Seismological Society and made it accessible to a
 >> wider audienceiilike the residents of the Marina and all other filled
 >> lands in the Bay Area, to begin with? I am sure most of the residents
 >> living there in 1989, or their replacements, are back living in the
 >> Marina and probably have little knowledge of the history of that land.
[snip]
M>Near the beginning of December, 1989 the USGS released Circular 1045
 >"Lessons Learned from the Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October
 >17, 1989."  This circular was aimed at the lay public and media and was
 >widely disseminated.  I would be surprised if any journalists working
 >on the story weren't offerred a copy.  On page 25 it reads, "One of
 >the ironies of the devastation in the Marina district is that the
 >heavily damaged part rests on fine sand fill that was hydraulically
 >emplaced after the 1906 earthquake.  Debris from buildings destroyed
 >in 1906 may have been used as landfill also.  This filled lagoon, where
 >the district now stands, was the site of the International Exposition
 >to celebrate San Francisco's postearthquake rejuvenation.  On October
 >17, 1989, sand boils in the district erupted pieces of buried charred
 >redwood, tar paper, and other debris in a poignant reminder of the city's
 >earthquake history."  I would also bet that this info was in the local
 >papers, but I don't have the time to go back and look.  A large
 >exhibit on the Marina District liquefaction was also a popular element
 >of one of the USGS Open Houses.  Again a time when both members of the
 >public and the press (about 25,000 people attend these when they occur
 >in Menlo Park) can learn about such things.
Hmmm... I hadn't been paying attention to this thread.  This last
month I was too busy meeting with local officials in 17 cities and
four counties about new maps that the state will be releasing on
October 1. But it appears that the participants of this discussion may
not know that earlier this year, the USGS, California Department of
Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology (DOC/DMG), and six local
agencies sponsored six workshops for local government officials. The
purpose of these workshops was to brief local planners and building
officials about the importance of geology and the work that the USGS and
DMG are doing and some of the products that can help them in their
land-use planning and permitting. USGS sent letters to each city and
county in the 9 Bay Area counties, Santa Cruz, and Monterey inviting
them to send staff-- many did, but some did not. I believe that
attendence totalled about 350 people (not all of whom were city/county
staff). The press covered the Santa Cruz meeting and perhaps one other.
Last February, when DMG released an Open-File Report (Reconnaissance
Seismic Hazard Maps for 16 quads in the LA region), the press conference
was attended by all 17 area TV stations and received wide coverage in
the media (TV, radio, and newspapers) for several days. An article even
appeared in "Rolling Stone" magazine (a mid-August 1996 issue, as I
recall).
Then there are the efforts on the World-Wide Web and CD-ROM. Perhaps
they're a bit technical (at least at times) and difficult to find, but
USGS and DMG are putting a considerable amount of information aimed at
educating the public and local officials on the web. Check out the
California Geology magazine articles, Teacher Features, etc., at
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/pubs/cg.html . Also, take a look at some of
the infomration at DMG's Seismic Hazards Mapping Program site
(http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezp/ . The Association of Bay Area
Govenrments (ABAG -- http://www.abag.ca.gov/) produced an interactive
CD-ROM that contains the earthquake-related maps that are available at
their web site, educational exercises (they're fun!), and more. And
there's quite a bit at the USGS (http://www.usgs.gov/) if you search for
it.
I'm not saying we've done enough outreach (DMG intends to do more, as
you may see in the press during next few weeks), but I wanted to provide
an indication of some of the things that the state and federal surveys
have done recently to "spread the word about geologic hazards." Realize
that news content is up to the press; USGS and DOC can invite them,
provide them with "sound bites" and written material, but the extent of
the coverage (and the accuracy of their reporting) is beyond our
control.
  -- Ted (speaking for myself)
+===========================================================================+
|    Ted Smith  [Mountains West Consulting]         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       GEOSCI-JOBS@eskimo.com: Geoscience Employment Opportunities         |
|        Send Sub/Unsub requests to GEOSCI-JOBS-REQUEST@eskimo.com          |
| With SUBJECT: SUBSCRIBE or SUBJECT: UNSUBSCRIBE (message text is ignored) |
|     Archive Index: http://www.calweb.com/~tcsmith/mail/gsj-arc.html       |
|Online Resources for Earth Scientists: http://www.calweb.com/~tcsmith/ores/|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Due to the ongoing activity at Gorda region, we will conclude window time
at 24:00PCDT this evening, but will extend-without-prediction, the time
frame. It is still quite possible taht a singularity as per the Pacific
Plate Twist-Off Theory could occur at or near the MTJ soon.
  For more information about the PPTOT you may visit:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint/new.html
  For more information about our ALERT page you may visit:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint/alert.html
  The Newsletter has been updated and may be read at:
http://bbs.ert.com/pinpoint
--
<<<:::<<>>:::>>>
  Peaceful Pines-Mountain Wind Family 
 Mendocino, Ca./Malo, Wa/EWU, Cheney Wa.

Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: Not planning on place like that.  If someone needs a forum to
: communicate their ideas without contradiction, they can put
: up their own web page.
Or... they can use the existing newsgroups and vote to tell you to go to 
hell!
Ken
-- 

In article <51e8pa$nlj@elna.ethz.ch>, Henry  wrote:
>Ronald E. Thomas wrote:
>1) Conventional wisdom says that Jesus was born on Dec 25 0001AD, so
>2000 years won't be up until Christmas day 2000.
No, conventional wisdom says he was born in the spring of 6 BC,
before Herold died in 4 BC.
That would make the the 2000th anniversary in 1995.
December comes from borrowing a Roman winter holiday.
The 1AD error is a medieval clerical error.

Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: The issue facing the participants is whether they want to
: come to these groups to post and read about any imaginable
: subject or whether the group's charter actually means something.
I don't think that ANY IMAGINABLE subject is quite the issue here. 
Granted, there are the requests for "make money fast" and the off the 
wall posts that get posted. But MOST of the posts do relate to the issues 
of each specific group.
I'll also agree that as the population of USENET expands there is the 
potiential for greater abuse. However, the VAST majority of newcomers to 
the Internet do follow the procedures that have been in effect for many 
years.   
: The day I pick up the Wall Street Journal and find the National
: Enquirer inside is the day I'll argue along side you Ken.
Just because one or two or even a handfull of off-topic authors decend 
upon a newsgroup is no justification for some Johnny Comelately to try to 
change the charter of a group or several groups that MOST of the readers 
are content to deal with in their own way. 
You a free citizen of the Internet are perfectly within your right to attempt 
such a change but it is also our right to fight you every step of the way. 
You still haven't addressed the issue as to why you can't accomplish your 
view of what the world ought to be thru a listserver and mail list rather 
than changing a forum that many of us find perfectly workable as it is!
Why don't you start a sci.geo.moderated.maillist and receive the posts as 
they come off the USENET feed. Then use your robot (man or machine) to 
fwd the approved posts to your subscribers? By doing so we'd all heve the 
best of both worlds. You'd have your moderation and we'd have the 
unmoderated group.
You seem to be one of those folks bent upon saving the rest of us from 
ourselves rather than solving a problem that affects your world and your 
world alone. Just like your refusal to accept responsibility for what you 
read, you refuse a solution that would solve your problem while leaving 
the rest of the world alone. Are you that lost that you must derive some 
pleasure from knowing that you've placed an element of c*o*n*t*r*o*l over 
the rest of us????
Please address the issue regarding why a mail list would not accomplish 
your goals. 
1. It would receive posts just as fast as any individual account.
2. It would provide access for anyone with e-mail service whether or not 
   they have USENET access or not. 
3. You could moderate the list any way that you saw fit.
4. You could post information regarding the mail list in the appropriate 
   groups so new Internet customers would be aware of the service and could 
   subscribe if they wished.
5. The rest of USENET would be unaffected by your presence.
6. The choice of moderated or unmoderated would be the choice of the 
   reader and thus a democratic choice rather than a totalitarian one.
I anxiously await your response. 
Ken
-- 

> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
> : Not planning on place like that.  If someone needs a forum to
> : communicate their ideas without contradiction, they can put
> : up their own web page.
> Ken Navarre wrote:
> Or... they can use the existing newsgroups and vote to tell
> you to go to hell!
> 
> Ken
Not logical.
How does the use of the existing newsgroup prevent contradiction?
The proposed moderated group would invite any on topic discussion,
even contradictory ones.
Richard

Chuck Karish wrote:
>  
> I'm sure that's great for people who want to spend their time on line
> arguing about how to program a robot.  The whole idea of conducting
> a series of popularity polls to see who should be banned from
> sci.geo.* leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> 
> Richard, if you can't see the totalitarian overtones inherent
> in your proposal, you are not tuned into the libertarian
> spirit of usenet.
I believe that very little time will be spent conducting
"popularity polls".  My impression is that most of the posts
to be bounced would require almost no discussion at all due
to a landslide majority consensus that they are off topic.
Can you identify some potential cases where, in your opinion,
the group will have difficulty in coming to an overwhelming
...say 90% majority?  These would be the ones that could cause
a controversy.  If there is a discussion, should it take place
in an unmoderated area such as news.groups?
Totalitarian?  Perhaps if there was a human moderator and we
were under that person's whim; that's not what I'm proposing.
Popularity contest?  Okay, there is a potential for any voting
system to be a popularity contest, and there is a distant yet
very unlikely possibility that the actual votes favor posts that
were far off topic, especially when there are so many places
on the net that people can already go to be a part of that
discussion.
Richard

Ken Navarre wrote:

> Why don't you start a sci.geo.moderated.maillist and receive the posts as
> they come off the USENET feed. Then use your robot (man or machine) to
> fwd the approved posts to your subscribers? By doing so we'd all heve the
> best of both worlds. You'd have your moderation and we'd have the
> unmoderated group.
>
> Please address the issue regarding why a mail list would not
> accomplish your goals.

Because a mailing list is not a newsgroup, the rest of your
questions are irrelevant.
Why do you complain about a moderated newsgroup when the
proposal includes a non-moderated one?
Most specifically, what is your own agenda here Ken?  Do you
feel that some posts that you would want to make or see would
not be accepted by the proposed system?  If so please identify
such, or are you arguing merely for the sake of argument?
Richard

In article <323A23ED.70CD@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Oertell writes: 
>Garrett M. Albright wrote: 
>>  
>> Anyone heard of Jerry Hurley? He's a high-school teacher up here in
little ol' 
>> Fortuna California (have him for typing)and he has predicted over 70 
>> earthquakes. He says he feels a strange energy, and he can tell from
where 
>> the energy is coming from by turning around until the energy is at his 
>> strongest. If he has the chance, he'll then travel somewhere else and
"tune 
>> in" the energy again. Then he uses triangulation to predict where it
will 
>> occur. Some people think he's a nut, but I donno... 
> 
>    ...and how many has he either not predicted or predicted without 
>results? 
Bill, 
The better question would be; 
    How many predictions has he missed on? 
Dennis

In article <32399523.7B47@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes: 
>There is a proposal before the groups sci.geo.earthquakes and 
>sci.geo.geology to reorganize and add a computer run robot to approve 
>posts and stop the jibberish.  Please see the thread on the RFD 
>version 6 and also surveys I've been posting, including a new survey 
>later today. 
> 
>There is a way we can clean up the mess. 
What gibberish and what mess? 
>For readers that only visit sci.geo.earthquakes: 
>This post came from sci.geo.geology where the off topic stuff 
>is really getting bad.  Go take a look there.  Historically, 
Guess I should have read this part first.  :-) 
>sci.geo.earthquakes came from sci.geo.geology.  How long will 
>it be before the creation versus evolution threads become the 
>"God destroys the world by earthquakes" threads?  Yes, I'm just 
>speculating, but the progression seems to be in a negative 
>direction. 
Actually, sci.geo.earthquakes came from ca.earthquakes because 
of the lack of sites carrying the ca.* groups. 
Here's the rational from the original CFV for sci.geo.earthquakes: 
:RATIONALE 
: ca.earthquakes is a fairly high-volume regional newsgroup devoted to 
: discussion of earthquakes in California.  However, judging from the 
: posts in that newsgroup, earthquakes and earthquake mitigation are 
: topics of worldwide interest.  Several past posts to ca.earthquakes 
: originate outside California and seek information about earthquake 
: history in other areas (New Madrid, for example), but aren't also 
: being posted to sci.geo.geology. Thus ca.earthquakes seems to be 
: appearing as a substitute for a more focused newsgroup (i.e., 
: sci.geo.earthquakes).  It also is often stated that ca.earthquakes is 
: carried at sites located far from California, but complaints have been 
: received that site administrators of some non-California sites won't 
: carry the newsgroup. 
Dennis 

In article <51668u$eba@seismo.CSS.GOV>, David Salzberg writes: 
>it does not take a few minutes to communicate these concepts in a 
>manner that they will not be misunderstood -- at least a lot 
>longer (ut then, I am not a particularly good writer). 
> 
>That is why I don't post more here.  1 year ago, when I tried to 
>contribute more to this organization, I found that I was spending 
>3 to 4 hours a day (after work) with this group.  The effort 
>required to write one good article is long.  Try it some time. 
In article <516fua$23b@news.unocal.com>, Richard Ottolini writes: 
>No. An authoritative organization should filter the information 
>else you may end up with too many messages of uncertain quality, 
>much like current usenet groups.  Especially if the information 
>has strong legal and economic implications. 
In article <32371B37.794BDF32@andreas.wr.usgs.gov>, Andy Michael writes: 
>Yes, to actually communicate well with the general public 
>really requires the use of science writers who specialize 
>in translating our ideas into words the public can understand. 
>After that the drafts should be tested on members of the 
>target audience and rewritten.  Doing it well takes a lot of 
>effort.  
> 
>Doing it poorly is easy, but it takes a lot of effort correcting 
>the misconceptions that people get from a badly written piece. 
>This is really true.  I have seen days lost to a too brief comment 
>in a release about a routine earthquake. 
In article <516of2$ai4@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu
writes: 
>Craig Jones has done a nice job of discussing the interaction 
>with the media. The reporters do often see themselves 
>as filters, that it is up to them to decide which of the many thousands 
>of scientific papers published each month, whose authors would 
>like to be recognized, are important enough to be worth a mention 
>in the press. Many a university press release is not picked up 
>by the media. 
In article <517fam$9d5@news.unocal.com>, Richard Ottolini writes: 
>A scientific paper must contain enough description and a chain of 
>references to be reproducible.  Also there are often length 
>constraints- firm or via page charges. 
Okay guys.  I don't disagree with any of what you all are saying 
and I have to admit that I sympathize with the painstaking efforts 
that are needed to get publications, etc. out. 
Mostly what I'm trying to get at is treating slow-earthquakes and 
other observations the same as is done when reporting a regular 
earthquake. 
Regards, 
Dennis 

In article <5173dr$7ia@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
>In article <515ij4$6ag@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, 
>  wrote: 
> 
>>I wonder how many people did find some damage that they had repaired  
>>not knowing that it may have been caused by this movement?  
> 
>We're talking about an event that caused no perceptible shaking 
>and no surface rupture, and that took place in an unpopulated 
>area. 
But then we didn't have any surface rupture with the Northridge 
event albeit it did occur in a populated area. 
>If the wind doesn't blow in a forest where no one is present, 
>does anyone not hear the leaves rustle? 
That doesn't make sense.  If the wind wasn't blowing, how would 
anybody hear the leaves rustle if they were or weren't their? 
Dennis

In article <3236D36B.180F@nts.ohn.hydro.on.ca>, Harold Asmis writes: 
>Lifestyles of the Company Earthquake Scientist 
> 
>A typical morning has our scientist sitting at his desk.  "Thump!", 
>today's journal lands on his desk, an inch thick.  He browses though the 
>Table of Contents, looking for friends and colleagues.  Seeing none, he 
>flips through looking for interesting graphics.  Seeing none, he tries 
>to scan the abstracts for something interesting.  Finally, he ploughs 
>through the articles, most of which are incredibly boring, and gives up. 
> 
>Our scientist goes to a conference.  Most papers are incredibly boring, 
>but some speakers are interesting.  The hallway conversations fire him 
>up about exciting issues de jour. 
> 
>An interesting issue has come up at the company.  Some other scientist 
>has got the media fired up about imminent threat to life from 
>earthquakes.  The media line up at his desk.  They film a two hour 
>interview, and cut it down to 15 seconds, where our scientist looks like 
>a company stooge, versus the heroic figure of the outsider. 
>***** 
>I saw all the papers about slow earthquakes 4 years ago.  I'm a 
>geotechnical engineer and never saw any civil implications.  To see 
>implications, go to a certain town in China, where ultra-high strain 
>rates constantly cause buildings to split. 
Guess you haven't seen the Cienega winery.  Yes, its an isolated 
case. 
Loved your story though.  But I hope that it doesn't turn the 
kids off that are in school now that want to be geologists and 
seismologists after seeing how dry it is. 
Dennis

In article <5171ve$752@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
> 
>In article <515ihi$67m@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, 
>  wrote: 
>>In article <514ehp$l7p@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes:  
>>I agree, but your response doesn't answer the rest of my post  
>>that you snipped as follows:  
>>  
>>>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.   
> 
>That depends on what the observer's job is.  If the holder 
>of the information is a scientist, the i's do have to be 
>dotted and the t's do have to be crossed.  It's considered 
>irresponsible and detrimental to one's career to publish 
>partly analyzed data that's not understood to the extent that it 
>can be properly integrated with the prior understanding of 
>the phenomenon. 
> 
>If the holder of the information is working for an emergency 
>response organization, the responsibilities are different, 
>but there's still an imperative not to issue press releases 
>that don't contain immediately useful information - they 
>could make announcements of real emergencies seem less urgent. 
I have no argument against your argument above. 
Question though.  Do the seismologists go thru the same process 
when they are posting information about an event that has 
occurred? 
Dennis

In article <51g3ed$qf1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
>In article <51f8a4$d50@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, 
>  wrote: 
>>In article <3236DCE7.68B4@crl.com>, Bill Smith writes:  
>>  
>>>There seems to be a presumption that because people are the recipients  
>>>of public funds, that they are then responsible for the public, and,  
>>>like Dr. Zarkof of Flash Gordon, can anticipate the future and serve  
>>>up a ready solution to anyone who has a concern enough to complain.  
>>  
>>I guess you've never heard of Government of the people, by the people,  
>>for the people.  
> 
>Note the difference between "responsble for" and "responsible to". 
>The government is responsible to the people with respect to 
>the duties of the government.  Providing complete knowledge 
>on demand is not one of those duties. 
Boy, your pretty adept at changing the word from "for" to "to". 
The government is supposed to be responsible *for* the welfare 
of its citizens. 
>It's a good thing, too, because that's not possible. 
When their is a will, their is a way.  So your saying that the 
government *doesn't* have a will? 
Also you conveniently left out the first part of the constitution 
that I had posted which said, 
        "insure domestic Tranquility" 
        "promote the general Welfare" 
So I have to disagree with your response. 
Dennis

In article <516muf$ai4@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, jones@bombay.gps.caltech.edu
writes: 
>This  gets to the question of what causes damage in an earthquake. 
>According to seismologist, an earthquake is the the rapid movement of  
>one block of rock across another that produces shaking as one of 
>its effects. (To most lay people, the earthquake is the shaking 
>produced by the movement of the block of rock, but that's a whole 
>other thread.) The movement of the fault is the underlying cause 
>but almost all the damage is caused by the shaking. For instance, 
>in the Loma Prieta earthquake, only a bit of ground slumping in 
>the Santa Cruz Mountains might be directly attributable to fault 
>motion--everything else is shaking. In Northridge, probably all the 
>daamage was caused by shaking (a bit of ground deformation in the 
>Santa Susana Mountains and Granada Hills is debatable). 
> 
>So the direct fault motion of a M6.7 earthquake causes no damage 
>because it doesn't come to the surface. The M4.8 "equivalent 
>earthquake" that was the start of this thread was the movement of 
>a fault slow enough to produce no shaking that occurred at 
>depth (around 10 km deep). The whole point was this event didn't 
>produce shaking. I can't imagine how fault motion in the absence 
>of shaking at this depth could produce any damage. (BTW, broken 
>pipes are almost all caused by shaking-induced compaction of 
>loose surface soils--nothing to do with the fault.) 
I have no doubt that what your saying is true but when we do 
have a quake we do get ground swells (don't know if that is the 
right term) that travel across the surface.  It almost looks like 
an ocean wave traveling acrossed the surface.  Since these slow 
motion earthquakes are being classified as an earthquake and not 
as fault creep, wouldn't we get the same kind surface waves except 
that its in slow-motion? 
Wouldn't surface waves cause a mis-alignments to happen with 
piping.  I don't think that pipeing is that flexible.  Maybe it 
is? 
Regards, 
Dennis