HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thall@Ingres.COM (Trevor Hall)
Subject: Re: survey benchmarks
Reply-To: thall@Ingres.COM (Trevor Hall)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: ca
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:50:34 GMT

In article <131052@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov (Terri Hauk  423-7332) writes:
>Since the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act took effect in 1981, no
>building is allowed within 500 feet of an active fault trace. There are
>neighborhoods in Union City, I know, that leave a 'green corridor' along the
>trace of the Hayward fault through residential areas. 
> 

Does this apply to all buildings in California?  There's a new housing
development in Milpitas (c1990), with about a dozen homes seemingly
right on top of the southern Hayward fault.  I'm not sure of the
exact trace of the Hayward through Milpitas, but if you look up at
the hillside, just east of 680 between Calaveras and Scott Creek,
you can see a definite slump area.  There's also some stream traces
that take fairly severe jogs along that same line.

In any case, this housing development is built right along the slump.
I guess the developer thought that the level area created by the slumping
made a nice place to build houses...

--
 +-----+ Trevor Hall                     
 |    #| Database Engineer               "My dogma's better than your
 |     | Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.   dogma, my dogma's better
 +-----+ thall@sequent.com                than yours."
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: fax
Originator: stgprao@xing
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:14:32 GMT

In article <14pblmINNc6t@agate.berkeley.edu> greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
>However, Mr. Coles steadfastly refuses to share his data and his
>methods (beyond vague generalities).  So no other scientist can
>attempt his experiments to test their validity.  Therefore, no other
>scientist can say his predictions are valid.

There are two issues here- (1) the "accuracy" of the predictions
and (2) scientific reproducibility of the method.  The first can be
determined without the second.  I don't know what the official USGS or
State of California criteria are for a significant prediction, but I offer one:
The likelihood over background probability times the success rate for a fully
specified prediction window- time, location, and magnitude- should be at least
ten.  For example, say the background probability of a magnitude 5 in a 100
mile radius of San Jose is .03 per month.  (I don't know the exact number.)
Then if a quake occurs for one out of three predictions for this prediction
window, then I'd say this was significant and worth studying the prediction method.
This criteria weeds out very general predictions- e.g. a 5 in California during
a given month- a very high probability, and weeds out frequent wrong
predictions- e.g. the geologist who used to predict a quake every other full
moon.
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:28:16 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: Customer Service cs@BTR.COM

Speculation on the cause of the 1868 Hayward Earthquake             
(from an article in the Santa Clara "Argus", October 31, 1868)      
                                                                 
..."In all probability, there is a vast mineral vein underlying San Francisco
and stretching to the Sierras, which serves as a prime conductor for the
negative currents of this region.  By reason of the recent dry weather, and
by reason of other causes for renewed electrical energy in the earth, this
great prime conductor had become overcharged with negative fluid, and when
the recent moist fogs floated into the dry, vaporless atmosphere, a means
of conduction and equalization was formed between the negative currents of
the earth and the positive current above the insulating atmosphere, 
producing the local disturbance which lately occurred."

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Earthquake forecasting?
Originator: stgprao@xing
Keywords: Earthquake monitoring, Earthquake forecasting, EM pre-cursors
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:22:14 GMT

In article <2A7445B4.16880@noiro.acs.uci.edu> lockhart@mothra.nts.uci.edu (Jack C. Lockhart) writes:
>MONITORING FOR EARTHQUAKES
>
>Vince T. Migliore
>
>Earthquakes are sometimes preceded by and linked with curious
>electromagnetic signals in the lowest frequency ranges.  These signals
>can be detected using equipment found in many ham radio sources.  If
>you are interested in participating in experiments that may be able to
>detect seismic signals and even earthquake precursors, then read on.
>
>A growing body of scientific evidence now points toward the
>possibility of predicting major seismic events based on low frequency
>transients.  Probably the most widely known investigation was
>conducted by a team headed by Anthony Fraser-Smith of Stanford Star
>Lab.  This study found distinctive patterns in the 0.05 to 10 Hertz
>range (yes, Hertz, not kHz.).  The Fraser-Smith study was based on
>experiments conducted in the Soviet Union, which in turn grew out of
>folklore from China and Japan.  Joe Tate and William Daily found
>anomalies in the 1 to 10 kHz range, while other experimenters report
>signals up to 100 kHz.  Among amateur radio operators there are many
>anecdotal incidents of earthquake transients all the way up to the HF
>range.

There are some analogies between earthquake EM transients and SETI observations
(search for exterestrial intelligence):
(1) Both are looking for an EM signal, but don't know what and where that
signal is.
(2) The potential frequency bands and locations are astronomical (pardon the
pun).
(3) The SETI people have developed special purpose supercomputers called
spectral analyzers to search for these signals.  The SETI search algorithm
is rather simple: they look for narrow band periodic signals.  Taking the
autocorrelation of a piece of signal enhances periodicity and narrow
bandedness.  Then they look for systematic spectral shift caused by the
relative motion and rotations of the earth and the SETI body.
These supercomputers examine millions of locations and frequency bands in an
hour, but the possibilities are much larger than that.  I don't think there
is a knwon structure in the earthquake precusor like doppler shifting, so the
earthquake problem is still harder.
(4) Much of the development in both areas happened in the Stanford Electrical
Engineering department.
(5) Both areas seem to be attracting a lot of non-scientific cranks.
(6) Boths areas are suffering under anemic government funding.

Perhaps the geophysicist could borrow the SETI spectral analyzers for a while.
From: drake@Autodesk.COM (Dan Drake)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:06:11 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
+ In article <1992Jul21.035216.931@aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
+ >The Great Quake of 1906 in San Francisco occurred
+ >during a "Mono" wind condition. A Mono is the Northern California equivalent
+ >of Southern California's Santa Ana condition - a dome of high pressure
+ 
+ The 1989 Loma Prieta quake also happened on a very warm October day.
+ It was in the 90s at Stanford where I felt it.  The people who slept outside
+ that night were comfortable temperature-wise.

Nobody seems to have mentioned New Madrid in this discussion.  Weren't
all three quakes in winter?  Earthquake weather in Missouri in January
would truly be newsworthy.

--
Dan Drake
drake@Autodesk.com                       "Call me Email."
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: "Early Warning Earthquake Forecast" from Jack Cole
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:03:06 GMT

It was difficult to read this thing with a straight face. I'd like to
think it was dated April 1, but I'm afraid it wasn't. 

The frequency "deviations" Coles reports are so large that it's hard
to understand why they would not have been noticed before. Methinks
Coles needs a new radio, or perhaps a better understanding of how to
operate the one he has.

As for the possibility that changes in crustal stress might affect the
propagation velocity of low frequency radio waves, there's a very good
system already in place that would surely have noticed it by now:
LORAN-C.

LORAN-C is a radionavigation system operated by the US Coast Guard.
It is primarily for marine use, but it is also used for air navigation
and land vehicle position reporting.  LORAN-C transmits precisely
timed and spaced pulses on 100 Khz from arrays of stations arranged as
"chains". A LORAN receiver measures the time between the pulses of the
various stations in a chain, and knowing the location of each station
and the speed of light, determines its position.

LORAN-C is extremely sensitive to variations in timing and propagation
velocity; a time difference change of just one microsecond corresponds
to a position change of at least 300 meters, possibly much more if the
geometry is bad. Each chain has one or more "monitor stations" in
fixed locations that relay their measured locations back to a control
site which can adjust station timing as needed. There are also
location-dependent variations in propagation velocity that are largely
a function of the ground conductivity between transmitter and
receiver. (Seawater is very conductive, desert land is not.) The Coast
Guard has mapped and published these variations, and they are built
into ROM in most modern receivers.

So it seems to me that if the phenomemon Coles claims to see really
exists, it would have been noticed long ago in LORAN-C. Indeed, one
would expect it to be even more significant at 100 Khz than in the AM
broadcast band because of the RF "skin effect" -- lower frequencies
tend to penetrate conductors (like the earth) more deeply than higher
frequencies.

And given the skin effect, there's another navigation system that
should be affected even more -- Omega. (It operates down in the 10-20
Khz region, on a world-wide basis, and is regularly used by many
airliners on international routes). But it hasn't.

Coles' claims are classic pseudoscience. They simply don't stand up to
the mildest analysis, to say nothing of a good dose of common sense.

Phil
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 18:27:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Jul27.164436.990@unocal.com> 
	stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:

>There was a paper published by the Boston College Westin seismology lab
>many decades ago that correletated the change in background seismic noise
>with passing weather fronts.  I recall the paper was anecdotal rather than
>statistically rigorous.  It would be speculative to extrapolate minor
>background noise to major quakes.

Tidal forces clearly have an effect on seismic activity -- is there any
correlation between observable weather phenomena and tides?
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
From: art@acc.com (Art Berggreen)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:28:24 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: ACC, Advanced Computer Communications

In article <14f4qbINNe35@agate.berkeley.edu> greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
>Needless to say, that is not how earthquakes happen.  Yet people
>still persist in the belief of earthquake weather.  The simple
>fact is that earthquakes are no more likely to happen in hot
>dry weather than they are in cold, wet weather.  Earthquakes
>and weather are not at all correlated.

I think one factor is that most people are generally more tense and edgy
during hot, still weather.  It may be that people are more likely to worry
about quakes under those conditions and if one happens, attribute it to
the weather.

Most of my recollections of the news reports of large quakes in the Near
East and Asia are associated with the people having to deal with wintertime
conditions (definitely not hot weather).

Art
From: hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov (Terri Hauk  423-7332)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: survey benchmarks
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:06:29 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Jul21.162658.9112@qualcomm.com>, karn@chicago.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
|> In article <50978@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
|> >First, I disagree with the basic premise here.  Only if the building actually
|> >straddles the fault is there any problem.
|> 
|> Yes, I believe you're right, but isn't it true that fault zones (at
|> least in California) typically consist of weak, shattered rock a few
|> hundred feet wide so you are never really sure exactly where the
|> surface faulting will occur?................ 
|> 
|>... But if you build that close to a fault you are nonetheless taking a
|> major gamble that the fault won't decide to come up right underneath
|> you.  Peter Yanev, the author of that book (which I again recommend
|> *very* highly) argues that building within a few hundred feet of a
|> known active fault like the Hayward is unconscionable. He
|> even advocates the abandonment of existing buildings in the fault
|> zone and the conversion of these zones into parks or preserves.
|> 
|> Of course, this will never happen until the Hayward actually lets go.
|> And even when it does, the state will probably be so strapped with
|> general disaster relief spending that there would probably be little
|> or no money to actually buy those properties directly on the fault.
|> So the owners will probably take the low-interest disaster relief
|> loans, rebuild and pass the problem onto their children.
|> 
|> Phil

Since the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act took effect in 1981, no
building is allowed within 500 feet of an active fault trace. There are
neighborhoods in Union City, I know, that leave a 'green corridor' along the
trace of the Hayward fault through residential areas. 
 
You are right, though, that these traces aren't exactly nice, even fractures
that are an inch or so wide. Looking at microseismicity of an area you might
be able to determine the dip of a fault and whether surface rupture might occur
off the mappable surface fault trace and in which direction. Most of the Bay
Area strike-slip faults are pretty much vertical (no dip).

Even if we don't follow Yanev's
suggestion to abandon existing buildings on fault traces, 
information should be made available to homeowners that they are truly 
living on a fault
line so that they might be able to make more informed decisions about what
to do as individuals. (Besides, many of the buildings lining up along the
Hayward fault already belong to state, county and other local gov't agencies;
schools, universities, fire stations, hospitals, etc.) The new
Fremont City Hall has decided to remain where it is and retrofit, despite the
fact that a strand of the Hayward runs under one corner. 

Terri Hauk
LLNL, L-205                                  All opinions are my own and UC
Seismology and Applied Geophysics            and DoE cannot be held responsible. 
hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov

Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn)
Subject: building on fault
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:33:33 GMT

>>First, I disagree with the basic premise here.  Only if the building 
actually
straddles the fault is there any problem.  In that case part of the
building goes one way and the rest the other, and sure, that's a hard
problem to design around.
 
 
What's really fun to do is to go to PALMDALE at about R-13 and 20th!
 
They built houses with the ROAD in front RIGHT ON THE FAULT (san andreas)
and the front driveways are VERY LONG going towards the houses. THere's
some building code there that says that you can't build within 200
feet of a known fault!!
 
I can't wait for the big one, those houses will be nice firewood for
the winter!!
 
What bothers me is that we have to PAY for those houses when they
declare a "desaster area". I think we should say that anything
built within 2 miles of a known fault is EXEMPT from any payment of
our tax dollars!!
 
I know that GREED says that we shouldn't WASTE that land, but
waht about the LIVES when a quake hits???
 
I think its a big GREED problem and that building planners will have
egg on their face when all those houses in palmdale come crashing down!
 
(just my opinion here...)
 
Nate...
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Subject: Re: "Early Warning Earthquake Forecast" from Jack Cole
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.223200.6002@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>karl@ttank.ttank.com (Karl Bunch) writes:
>
>>Hmm.. I know a "psychic" that said there would be a "big one" tomorrow
>>Tuesday, July 21st around 10:00 am and/or pm.  (Wasn't sure, she saw
>>an analog clock on the wall in her "image" that read sometime around 10:00).
>>
>>I think she's probally as acurate as Jack Coles is.. ;-)
>
>I think your lack of respect for pure research is appalling.
>
>-- richard
>
Do you know wht is really silly about all this... is that the seismo lab
here at Caltech recieves numerous "prementions" (sp?) concerning earthquakes
and HECK eventually ONE of them will get it right


anne

Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: predictions
Originator: stgprao@xing
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:30:03 GMT

In article <9wmqoB2w163w@quake.sylmar.ca.us> nateh@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate Hawthorn) writes:
>Also, I really do not want to release my "method" to the public yet
>because I don't want some university using it and then inviting the
>news media over to see what they are doing and acting like they
>"thought" of it. I really hate that!!
> 
>That's why I think Mr. Coles is holding back, there's too many people
>out there that seem to know how to make $$ on this stuff but have little
>knowledge on how to make it all work.
> 
>But, I don't think it would be too hard for Mr. Coles to give you a
>report on what he has predicted before.
>I will be releasing my data as soon as I get enough, I don't think I will be 
>releasing my "method" for a while. THe data can stand on it's own, if it 
>shows the correlations correctly then it doesn't matter what I am using to 
>get the data or what "theory" people may have as to why the thing works
>(like why does a magnet stick to my fridge? who cares, it just does!)
> 
>It seems to me that big universities are too into figuring ways to get
>"funding" and I can see then taking this and making a "profit" on it and 
>that just doesn't wash in my book!

Money is not always the main motivator of scientists.
Fame sometimes is.  The person who published FIRST gets the fame and
often the chance to name the method after him or her.
With a lot of people working on EM-based earthquake forecasting,
there is a good possibly if one delays publishing, they lose the race
even if they felt they had the idea first.
Another motivation is the satisfaction of solving a tough problem.
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough)
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Summary: ok, my 2 cents 
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:58:21 GMT

In article <131171@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> hauk@s24.es.llnl.gov (Terri Hauk  423-7332) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.172704.20914@ttinews.tti.com>, paulb@harley.tti.com (Paul Blumstein) writes:
>|> 
>|> She mentioned that again right after the twin tremors.  Sure enough,
>|> it was abnormally hot & no wind  a few hours after they hit.  I 
>|> had been dismissing it as just a coincidence and now am surprised
>|> to learn that she is not alone in these observations.  Now I wonder.
>|> People used to dismiss Folk Medicine as "old wives tales", but some
>|> drug company took it serious enough to research all these tales &
>|> found some had merit.  So, do not be too quick to discount it.
>
>Earthquakes happen all over the world every day, guys. The climate and the 
>weather is not the same all over the world, every day.
>
>Anyway, what is the supposed mechanism between ambient air temperature and 
>earthquake rupture 5-20 km beneath the surface (for California)?

Sorry, but my sympathies lie with Paul on this one.  A supposed mechanism
to link weather and earthquake rupture?  How about large-scale atmospheric
pressure fronts?  How about tidal conditions (which can be linked to weather)
influencing earthquakes?  A very careful recent study of the San Jacinto
fault showed a definate correlation between the tidal cycle and
earthquakes.  Earthquakes and weather may not be linked on a one-to-one
basis on a global scale, but that does not mean that there is no
link whatsoever between the two.  No offense to Terri in particular, but
there's an awful lot that seismologists don't understand--one relavent
item is exactly what trigger causes an earthquake to be at 5:00 am on
Sunday rather than 11:00 am on Tuesday.  (Ever notice how many earthquakes
occur right at dawn, or right at dusk?).  Is there a "last straw"?  We
just don't know.  Given that, I think that Paul is right when he says
that scientists tend to be too quick (too arrogant?) in dismissing
especially anything that smells like old wive's tales.  Electromagnetic
precursors is another good example.

Sue Hough
USGS, Pasadena
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Hot, dry weather causes earthquakes"
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:03:58 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Robert S. Helfman <helfman@aero.org> writes:

	If the weather had been normal (that is, the usual strong
	westerly), the fire would not have been as disastrous.

I read a report recently about how "The Big One" was one of the biggest
insurance fraud events in history.  Basically, amateur photographers
who were on the scene soon after the quake doctored "before and after"
photographs to "prove" that most of the damage had been done after the
quake by the firestorm.  Most folks didn't have earthquake insurance,
but they sure as heck had fire insurance.  This was in American
Photographer within the last two years, and was "discovered" after
years of restoration of the old photos.  A suprising number of them had
been doctored, and there were some examples of topled chimneys being
drawn and painted into the pictures ...

As a kid I always heard "The quake was bad, but the *firestorm* after
did most of the damage!" ...

Jordan "Cheer Up, It Could Have Been A Camcorder" Hayes