Quakefinder Blog

We recently became aware of the Quake-Catcher Network project at Stanford. From their web site: “The Quake-Catcher Network is a collaborative initiative for developing the world’s largest, low-cost strong-motion seismic network by utilizing sensors in and attached to internet-connected computers.” This project to “catch” quakes as they happen could provide very short-term warning to people in the affected area. Depending on distance from the epicenter, you might get a few seconds up to a minute or so of awareness that a quake was about to occur (read more here.) But what can we do with just a few seconds warning? We can take immediate action such as turning off the stove, or hiding under a desk – but little else to really prepare. This certainly has the potential to save lives and money, and we applaud every effort to create earthquake warnings. QuakeFinder is aiming for warnings days to weeks before major quakes. With more warning, people will be able to make much more extensive preparations, such as avoiding hazardous areas, not traveling on certain days, or adjusting production or shipping schedules. Comment on this post to tell us what you would do if you had knew a major quake would hit your area within two weeks. Links: Seeking Citizen Seismologists in the Bay Area

We are excited to announce QuakeFinder has completed a major expansion of its network of instruments designed to detect electromagnetic signals that precede earthquakes. This expansion brings the total number of worldwide instrument sites to over 75. By mid February 2012, we had replaced or upgrade 37 old sites, added 18 new sites in California, and 8 more in Peru and Taiwan. Europe was also added to our network during this expansion, with 4 new sites in Greece. As we continue to expand and improve the network, QuakeFinder plans to build and install 62 new instruments during 2012. Of these there will be 50 new instruments in California, 13 will be replacements to phase out the remaining old units, and 37 will fill in various gaps in coverage in this key state. Negotiations are currently underway to install the remaining 12 new units in Peru, Greece, Turkey and Chile.

It is tempting to begin by saying “what good is a few minutes warning?” when reacting to the news that millions of dollars has been granted to researchers at Berkeley, Cal Tech, and the University of Washington to work on a system that gives notice that the ground has already started shaking. After all, if you’re near the epicenter of the quake when these alerts go out, you’re not going to have time to do much beyond dive under your desk. If you’re farther away, you get more warning (measured in seconds) but you might not really need to do anything. Still, any kind of warning at all is worth having. Anecdotally, this kind of system showed its worth in Japan last March when warnings of the Sendai mega-quake were used to shut down trains and other critical systems, although hard data on savings are difficult to come by. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the anticipated cost of such a system on the US west coast is $150,000,000. That’s a lot to pay for a few seconds warning! In contrast, the approach that QuakeFinder is researching could give us forecasts days before potential earthquakes. We have a long way to go before we really understand how well this will work – how accurate the forecasts can be, will we get a lot of false alarms, can we really forecast the magnitude, etc. But the cost to continue and expand this research is comparatively modest. QuakeFinder’s five-year goal is to capture and analyze signals related to three more earthquakes. The way to increase the likelihood of analyzing more quakes is to install instruments at 100 addition sites each year. To do this, we need to raise about $1,000,000/year in addition to the sponsorship we receive from Stellar Solutions – just a fraction of the money going into the ultra-short-term alert system.

In one of the more bizarre twists we have seen on reactions to earthquake prediction, we are watching news of the trial in Italy in which several scientists are accused of manslaughter because they DID NOT predict the L’Aqinas M6.8 quake that killed more than 300 people on 6 April 2009. The blog expertscolumn.com has good reporting on the situation. We had never even thought about being accused of not predicting an earthquake. Our concern is that when we do make a forecast, we might be held responsible for any panic or disruption that the forecast causes – especially if there’s no earthquake! Forecasts will never be 100% reliable, and we expect it will take a long time to hone the accuracy. That’s why when we see an indication that there might be a quake, we’re not going to go public with the information – we’re going to tell the appropriate emergency management authorities, and let them make the determination about what to do about it. In other earthquake warning news, there are reports that the US Government has been quietly testing a system similar to the one operational in Japan that can give a few seconds warning prior to the shaking starting when a quake hits. The San Jose Mercury News has coverage of it here. The problem with this kind of warning is that there is very little one can do to respond or prepare with only a few seconds warning. There are certainly some practical ways to use the information, such as stopping trains and starting the process of shutting down power plants. But it’s not enough warning for people to get out of harm’s way, and it’s very expensive. The kind of warning that QuakeFinder is working toward would give several days’ notice that a quake was likely in a particular area. This would allow people to prepare by avoiding activities and travel that would place them at risk. Rescheduling hazardous shipments, or even pre-positioning emergency supplies are other effective responses we expect to see when earthquake forecasting eventually comes on-line. That day would come sooner if even a tiny fraction of the money spent on seismological research were redirected toward the effort to identify and understand electromagnetic precursors.