Seeking Common Ground in Earthquake Prediction Delivery

Hi Everyone,

Cathryn and Michael (weatherlawyer) brought up the tip of the iceberg
on this one on another thread and I thought maybe we could toss this
around a bit and see if we can find some logical common ground about
who has a right to issue public earthquake predictions in a
professional manner.

Please don't get the wrong impression and think I'm beating up on the
California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Counsel, because I'm not.
I like those guys very much, but someone made the laws and predictors
have to follow them.

As you all know I'm in the process of setting up a new early warning
seismic network in the Bay Area, but when one or more of the network
units indicates a moderate to large earthquake is going to strike the
Bay Area I can't issue a professional prediction unless I can prove to
the counsel that places which have had earthquakes in the past will
continue to have them in the future. I can do it as an amateur, but I
don't want to because I want the warning to be taken seriously and
especially so because it's based upon years of experience using the
instrument.

Conversely, anyone can call the tabloids and tell them they had a
vision of a disaster and warn millions with no requirements
whatsoever.

So we get down to a simple question: Does the public have the right to
know?
(And perhaps should lienency in the law should exist when a particular
person has deomonstrated their instruments and their skills are right
more often than wrong? Maybe consultations should be permitted on a
case by case basis?)

Both the Alum Rock (San Jose) and the M 9.3 Sumatra earthquakes were
detected well in advance using this unit prior to those events as well
as a number of M 4.0 events in California.

So what say you all?

Petra


.

Relevant Pages