HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:31:30 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51661@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1gpc9gINNbc0@morrow.stanford.edu>, andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
>> Can someone send this to Jim Dolan (who with Kerry Sieh found those
>> faults in LA.  He's apparently already steamed over being called a
>> student in one news report.)?
>
>I'm not demeaning Dolan's work.  He did a lot more than just look at some old
>maps.  The comment was directed at the general audience in this news group -
>who often wonder what kinds of things seismologists do that amateurs might
>be able to try.  This is definitely something an amateur can try, it essentially
>amounts to historical research - digging around in old papers, in this case
>the papers are old maps.  I enjoy looking at old maps myself, and not just
>for geologic interest either.  I have some old maps that I saved from the trash
>that I just like the appearance of.  Looking at old maps can be fun.  And
>if you happen to know a little about fault morphology, you can look on old
>maps for faults without having a PhD.
>
>(And even if what he did was just look at some old maps - science is not
>necessarily hard, and there have been several instances where an insightful
>scientist comes up with something profound and very simple, such that
>everyone else goes "yeah, of course, it's obvious".  Yet it was unknown
>until that scientist saw it.  An important part of science is being able
>to think along those lines in the first place - no matter how simple
>the work then turns out to be.)

I should have put a smiley on that.  Sometimes its fun to pick on your
friends (Jim in this case).

And you are right this is a case where amateurs could really try and
do something.  Development has obscured a lot of interesting features
but they often do show on the old topo maps.

Andy
Xref: sparky ca.earthquakes:1459 sci.geo.geology:2583
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: BBSessss
From: shammon@eis.calstate.edu (Stephen Gilbert Hammond)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:48:38 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

hho@usc.edu (*** N.T.K.C.D. ***) writes:
> Hi all, I am looking for BBS or on-line archive of different agencies
> in CA. :-)
> 
> I am operating a BBS for DOG/Conservation committee of oil and gas
> producers.. We have on-line production/injection data of every
> wells in california for the last 3-4 years on-line (CCCOGP is operated
> since 1908)..
> 
> Thanks :-)
> H.
> 
> PS: I'll keep the list update ;-)
> H.
> 
> 
> -- 
> *******************************************************************************
> Hung P. Ho, Jr. (John)     USC DENTISTRY    PH.SYSTEMS          CCCOGP  
>                            hho@usc.edu      hung@phsys.com      hung@cccogp.com
The Public Seismic Network PSN BBS in California are:
   USGS Menlo Park 415-327-1517  members seismic data/ code
   San Jose 408-226-0675         members seismic data/ code/ GEOINFO net
                                 conference
   Pasadena 818-797-0536         members seismic data/ code

The State of California Mines and Geology:
   CDMG Online 916-327-1208      Geology info/ code/ GEOINFO net conference

Regards, Steve Hammond SYSop - PSN San Jose
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:55:05 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1gpc9gINNbc0@morrow.stanford.edu>, andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
> In article <51641@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >to investigate and pre-development maps of the region.  This technique
> >was used to help identify the two new faults in LA.  The old maps often
> >indicate scarps, offset streams, sag ponds, etc., that existed along
> >a fault trace before these indicators were oblitorated.  This is something
> >that an amatuer with a basic understanding of fault geomorphology and access
> >to old maps can do - it doesn't necessarily take a PhD.
> Can someone send this to Jim Dolan (who with Kerry Sieh found those
> faults in LA.  He's apparently already steamed over being called a
> student in one news report.)?

I'm not demeaning Dolan's work.  He did a lot more than just look at some old
maps.  The comment was directed at the general audience in this news group -
who often wonder what kinds of things seismologists do that amateurs might
be able to try.  This is definitely something an amateur can try, it essentially
amounts to historical research - digging around in old papers, in this case
the papers are old maps.  I enjoy looking at old maps myself, and not just
for geologic interest either.  I have some old maps that I saved from the trash
that I just like the appearance of.  Looking at old maps can be fun.  And
if you happen to know a little about fault morphology, you can look on old
maps for faults without having a PhD.

(And even if what he did was just look at some old maps - science is not
necessarily hard, and there have been several instances where an insightful
scientist comes up with something profound and very simple, such that
everyone else goes "yeah, of course, it's obvious".  Yet it was unknown
until that scientist saw it.  An important part of science is being able
to think along those lines in the first place - no matter how simple
the work then turns out to be.)


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Quake felt in Menlo Park 1pm Sunday
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:06:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec21.002841.2664@leland.Stanford.EDU> gsroka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gregory Sroka) writes:
>I felt a small but very noticeable amount of shaking while
>[...]
>this be from a long distance medium quake, or from a very close but small
>one?  Does anyone know if and where the epicenter was?

Yes, I felt it in Moraga too.  It felt like one single `drop' or shake.  
According to the callers on the radio, a lot of them felt two quakes...
the sudden jolt one and a shaker afterwards.  I wonder why I missed the 
second one?  The epicenter was reported to have been in San Leandro and a
first report placed it at 3.3 while latter reports said it was between 3.5
and 4.0.  (Probably two different sources and the media decided to take
the larger one for the SENSATIONALIZATION FACTOR.)

Other news reports have mentioned fireplace chimney damage in Oakland.

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
From: hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:01:05 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.gps.caltech.edu

In article <51659@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1gll3tINNdsr@gap.caltech.edu>, hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough) writes:
>> 
>> The magnitude 7.4 1992 "Landers" earthquake occurred on 
>> a series of fault segments that probably had not ruptured 
>> in the last 3000-5000 years.  The faults that produced the
>
>I haven't seen any articles published on this, and couldn't go to the
>AGU this year.  Did someone do some paleoseismology on the faults out
>there?  What kind of evidence pointed to a 3000-5000 year repeat?

Kerry Sieh talks about repeat times on the order of thousands of
years based on fault morphology and preliminary trenching work along
a couple of fault segments; I don't think the latter has made it into
print yet.  I've also seen a couple of strain-rate calculations yielding 
similar results--this was presented at an informal Landers seminar
at CalTech by a grad student whose name escapes me. (How's that for
reliable referencing?).  Within a year, I suspect we'll start to
see some results in print.

Sue
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Earthquake Risks Called Exaggerated"
Date: 13 Dec 1992 06:52:44 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec10.075333.6706@netcom.com> bverreau@netcom.com (stargazer) writes:
>From the "San Francisco Chronicle", 12-9-92, p. A3 [w/o perm]:
>
>  "Scientists using a computer to simulate 10,000 years of earthquake
>   history on the San Andreas Fault proposed yesterday that the chances
>   of disastrous quakes occurring in California are far lower than
>   official forecasts have indicated.
>
>  "Major quakes happen so randomly, the scientists said, that long-range
>   forecasts based on the assumption that temblors repeat themselves at
>   regular intervals tend to exaggerate the risks."
>
>The article then goes on to quote a UCSC geophysicist who, together with a
>grad student, have developed a computer model based on "every quake known
>to have hit every segment of the fault since the first ones were reported
>150 years ago".
What they did was use the old quakes to break the fault into segments
and assign strenghts to those segments.

>  "The two scientists then ran their 'synthetic seismicity' computer program
>   back for 10,000 years and found that the pattern of repeated quakes could
>   vary by hundreds of years.  Official calculations assume that fault
>   segments tend to rupture at fairly regular intervals."
>
>They conclude that all current forecasts are much too pessimistic.  The
>mid-peninsula segment of the SA, for example, had been predicted to have
>a 23-37% chance of producing a major earthquake by 2020, but a more
>realistic number would be 15-18%.  Similarly, Parkfield should have been
>given a 66% chance for a quake by 1993 rather than the 90% estimate (1985).
>All of this was reported at yesterday's San Francisco meeting of the
>American Geophysical Union.

That's 60% for the next 30 years for Parkfield according to the talk I
saw and my conversation with the student (Goes) who gave it.  That
seems a bit low to me.  The model is based a segmented fault that is
loaded with stress and when a segment fails it transfers stress to the
other segments.  I think the problem with this model is that it is only
one-dimensional and the interactions between segments are too strong
which could result in higher than real variations in earthquake
occurrence.  To be honest, I am not convinced that their model really
produces realistic earthquake patterns.  Until I am I don't give their
numbers much credibility.  They, of course, disagree.

Andy
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:59:49 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

fretts@willee.enet.dec.com (Carole Fretts) writes:
> 
> In addition to the Nostradamus predictions mentioned, a man by the name
> of Gordon-Michael Scallion of New Hampshire is predicting a 95% chance of
> a major earthquake hitting California by May 9, 1993.  ...

The readers of this group probably don't need to be told that there
could well be a large earthquake in the next 6 months, which Mr Scallion
would score as a proof of his methods.  But it raises the good old
question, which started bothering me in high school when the weather
reports started talking about an XX% chace of rain: How do you test the
hypothesis that the chance of rain really was XX%?  (Which is surely
easier than testing whether the porbability of an earthquake was 95%.)

Fortunately, there is an answer to this.  If you haven't seen Tom
Weller's ``Science Made Stupid'', try to find a copy for a Christmas
present for someone you love, such as yourself.  You'll find in it a
full set of instructions for making a probable rain gauge to measure
probable rain.  (Of course, there's also a full explanation of plate
tectonics.)

--
Dan Drake                 Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls;
drake@Autodesk.com        It tolls for Them.
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:54:47 GMT

In article <1gtg65INNc6r@gap.caltech.edu>, hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough) writes:
> I've had the, ahem, pleasure of reading some of Scallion's "Earth
> Changes Report".  He seems to make predictions for earthquakes all
> over California on a regular basis--for 1992, he "foresaw" major
> quakes in Sonoma County, I think San Diego, in central CA, and
> Southeast of LA.  It was all supposed to start in Spring, continue
> with several magnitude 9 events in the Fall, and culminate with
> something like a magnitude 15 (!?) earthquake in May of 1993.
  
  <snicker>

  Wouldn't a magnitude 15 sort of, er, split the earth in half?
But just for fun, is there any guestimate as to what the largest
magnitude earthquake was in, say recent geological history? I've
heard that the Chilean quake was close to 9 but is there any 
evidence of quakes much bigger than that?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:06:09 GMT
Subject: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes

I was surprised that nobody had posted any details about the
newly discovered "San Jose Fault" - reported in Saturday's
Mercury News.  Not surprisingly, the article in the Merc was
sketchy on details.

1)      The article said this fault was first identified
	using data from an instrument "towed behind an
	aircraft."  Any details?

2)      The article indicated that this fault has not 
	moved in a long time (1000+ years?  My memory fails
	me...).  Would that suggest a fault that is
	dangerously locked?  Or one that's dormant?  (The
	article characterized it, if my memory serves me
	well, as "active".  How can it be active if it
	hasn't moved in 1000 years?)  

3)      Saturday's Merc included a map that showed the 
	fault winding its way through San Jose, following
	101 pretty closely down toward Gilroy.  But the text
	indicated that the fault can't be mapped accurately
	because it hasn't moved, and because the area it is
	in is so highly developed (unlike San Andreas which
	is up in the hills...)  If it can't be tracked, does
	that mean that the map is pure conjecture?  

So - does anybody who's more knowledgable than I (and it
wouldn't take much) want to comment?  Is the San Jose fault
"real"?   How big of an event could it cause?  Incidentally,
the map in the Merc showed other faults running through
San Jose - the Santa Theresa fault for example.  Where can I
get a comprehensive map that shows all the known faults on
the peninsula?  (Could one be posted?)  

Thanks to Andy and all the other folks who make this one of
the most interesting newsgroups on the net....
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:12:26 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1gpcihINNbfa@morrow.stanford.edu>, andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
> I just thought it was worth saying that I agree with this view
> of the seismic hazard with one small modification.  Regardless of
> the short term periodicity of the faults the San Andreas will have
> most of the really big earthquakes in CA over the long term.  It
> is responsible for most of the deformation and it can't do that
> without lots of earthquakes.  In the last 200 years the two largest
> earthquakes by far were both on the San Andreas (1857 and 1906).

I agree mostly.  South of the transverse ranges, however, the San Andreas
may only carry about half the deformation.  The remainder would be
spread among many other faults, but overall, you'd expect about as many
big quakes off the San Andreas down there as on it.  Also, while
1857 and 1906 are the largest, I wouldn't say "by far".  The 1872 Owens
Valley quake was quite large, probably about 7.8.  The 1812
southern CA quake may have been west of the San Andreas (it had always been
thought to have occured in the Santa Barbara Channel due to the large
tsunami, but a few years back, Kerry Sieh proposed it may have been
on the San Andreas).  It was a very large quake, with felt area and
damage similar to 1857, though shifted west.  However, in tacking on these
two during the last 200 years, I will tack on 1838 as well, which was
similar to the 1906 quake, and was without doubt on the San Andreas
(probably including the area of the Loma Prieta quake).  So that gives
us 3 San Andreas, 1 definitely not San Andreas and a little smaller,
and 1 unknown.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Landers aftershock trend
Date: 13 Dec 1992 06:46:36 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec9.174544.11522@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>A Russian statistics group has tried to exploit spatial anomalies without
>understanding a causal mechanism.  The larger the zone of small anomalous
>events, the more likely a big event.
This is not quite the way the so-called "M8" algorithm works.  The
size of the area analyzed decides the size of event they are trying
to predict.  However, the anamolous behavior could be in a small part
of the area studied and would still predict a large event.  For the
Loma Prieta "prediction" Mark Matthews of MIT demonstrated that it
depended mostly on induced seismicity in the Geysers geothermal area.

>They made a "prediction" of the
>Loma Prieta event on this data.  I don't know if they foresaw Landers;
>perhaps Andy knows.  
Haven't heard a mention of it, even at AGU.  I would have expected
a poster or talk if they had.

Andy
From: hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:35:01 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.gps.caltech.edu
Summary: G-M Scallion

In article <18178@autodesk.COM> drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake) writes:
>fretts@willee.enet.dec.com (Carole Fretts) writes:
>> 
>> In addition to the Nostradamus predictions mentioned, a man by the name
>> of Gordon-Michael Scallion of New Hampshire is predicting a 95% chance of
>> a major earthquake hitting California by May 9, 1993.  ...
>
>The readers of this group probably don't need to be told that there
>could well be a large earthquake in the next 6 months, which Mr Scallion
>would score as a proof of his methods.  But it raises the good old

I've had the, ahem, pleasure of reading some of Scallion's "Earth
Changes Report".  He seems to make predictions for earthquakes all
over California on a regular basis--for 1992, he "foresaw" major
quakes in Sonoma County, I think San Diego, in central CA, and
Southeast of LA.  It was all supposed to start in Spring, continue
with several magnitude 9 events in the Fall, and culminate with
something like a magnitude 15 (!?) earthquake in May of 1993.
He predicted that the state would become known as the "Isles of
California".  The April and June earthquakes roughly fit with 
part of the predictions, but I don't seem to remember any 9's 
during the Fall.  Scallion is very good at playing the game--making
almost blanket predictions, claiming success for anything that
comes close, and for good measure making concessions on minor
points where his predictions miss (like conceding that there was
no major flooding in LA after the Spring earthquakes, but not 
conceding that magnitude 9 earthquakes never materialized).

Sue Hough (speaking for myself, as always, and NOT the USGS)
From: walter@prefect.es.llnl.gov (Bill Walter 423-8683)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Landers aftershock trend
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:05:06 GMT
Distribution: ca

|> In article <1gem8cINNeqo@morrow.stanford.edu> andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec9.174544.11522@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:

|> >>A Russian statistics group has tried to exploit spatial anomalies without
|> >>understanding a causal mechanism.  The larger the zone of small anomalous
|> >>events, the more likely a big event.
|> >
|> >This is not quite the way the so-called "M8" algorithm works.  The
|> >size of the area analyzed decides the size of event they are trying
|> >to predict.  However, the anamolous behavior could be in a small part
|>  
|> >>They made a "prediction" of the
|> >>Loma Prieta event on this data.  I don't know if they foresaw Landers;
|> 
|> >Haven't heard a mention of it, even at AGU.  I would have expected
|> >a poster or talk if they had.
|> 
|> Looking at my 1992 SCEC (Southern California Earthquake Center) report,
|> I find a few pages from Keilis-Borok et al. claiming identification
|> of a prediction for souhern California for 1990-92 based on increased
|> regional seismicity.
|> 
|> This is a very brief report, and not something that would be easy
|> to find.  Maybe the results will surface elsewhere shortly.
|> 
|> Sue Hough

There was a talk by Bernard Minster on the M8 algorithm at the AGU meeting (S22B-6),
unfortunatly I missed it.  From second hand reports of this talk it sounded like
the algorithm is quite sensitive to the inclusion or exclusion of just a few events
making the predictions very dependent on the time or spatial window used.  It sounded
like the 1989 Loma Prieta prediction was determined mostly by seismicity in the
Long Valley Caldera region! Perhaps someone who attended this talk could provide
more details.

Bill Walter
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: fretts@willee.enet.dec.com (Carole Fretts)
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:49:45 GMT


In addition to the Nostradamus predictions mentioned, a man by the name
of Gordon-Michael Scallion of New Hampshire is predicting a 95% chance of
a major earthquake hitting California by May 9, 1993.  This is based on
information/visions he has received.  He publishes "The Earth Changes
Report" on a monthly basis, which tracks his predictions as well as major
worldwide events.

Also, I recently read an article describing research done by a woman
connecting eclipses to major earthquakes.  This research is astrologically
based using astro-carto-graphy, which tracks planetary/angular placements
on earth locations.  When particular planetary/angular combinations occur
during an eclipse, there is a very high percentage of earthquake/volcanic
activity in the area where this placement falls.  The eclipse of Dec. 9,
1992 and the eclipse of Nov. 29, 1993 have these combinations falling right
across California.  Based on her research, the events can occur up to
12 months after the event, but most often they are sooner.

In addition to the California predictions, the path of the May 10, 1994
solar eclipse crosses the Midwest and Northeast, and 2 weeks later a
Lunar Eclipse has Mars and Uranus placements in the Midwest.  Then on
Nov. 3, 1994, the solar eclipse has Pluto rising over the Midwest and
directly through the state of Missouri.


Carole