From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Subject: Re: predictions
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:05:33 GMT

In article <l8u46aINNqnd@spock.usc.edu> chrisi@spock.usc.edu (Chris Irwin) writes:
>Having said all of that, let me point out a few concerns I have with
>this system.  First of all, I have no idea what criteria OES uses to
>determine whether an advisory is warranted or not.
OES will convene the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation
Council (CEPEC), either by phone if it is a short term prediction
or at one of their meetings for long term predictions.  This is a
panel of earth scientists drawn from Universities and the State
and Federal governments.  Their consensus drives OES's actions.  Some
actions, like aftershock advisories are pre-approved by this panel.
> Second, the
>information in the advisory is very vague and sketchy.  There is no
>real information as to when the quake is expected, where, what fault
>line, anticipated magnitude, or duration of the alert.  I think that
>the advisory we got after the Landers and Big Bear quakes put the 
>time fram at something like from 3 hours to several weeks (and we
>never get notice to call the advisory off).
Aftershock advisories are vague because aftershocks are.  They are
for earthquakes in the same area as the mainshock and the highest
probability is for right after the mainshock and then they die away
with time, but there can't be a firm end to such an advisory only
a time when each person that needs to make a decision can decide to
go back to life as usual.  The probabilities for different time
windows are designed to help you do that.  Other advisories that
I have been involved in, such as after the Lake Elsman preshocks
to Loma Prieta, had specific and stated 5 day windows.
>Finally, due to the
>bureaucratic path that the advisory follows, by the time it gets out
>to the folks who really need it two or three days could have elapsed
>and the event already occurred.
Given the poor state of earthquake prediction I wouldn't worry too
much that you will miss something really important.  Also whenever
OES releases an advisory through the state to county command chain
a press release is also made.  Thus the word really does go out
quickly.  The second Lake Elsman event happened at 1:15AM, the
press release was in the newsrooms by 5:30AM.  Personally I think
we are better at wording and releasing these things than we are
at earthquake prediciton.  I just hope we get better.  If you do
have suggestions about how the advisories could be made better
I would suggest writing to the folks at State OES.  They do worry
about these things quite a lot and want them to work well for the
readers such as you.

Andy

>
>> 
>>I think that anyone who has a good idea that there is going to be a 
>>earthquake and has some decent data to back it up should be heard by
>>any "officals" and the public told about it.
>> 
>>Let the public decide if they want to listen or not, no "offical" should
>>hold back information at all! The "officials" should add their own data
>>and information to the data, and can even say what *they* think is the
>>percentages of this being true is.
>> 
>I agree.  Properly educated (about earthquakes), the public has the
>right to evaluate the data and make their own decisions.
>The only advisory issued to us thus far was after the Landers and Big
>Bear shocks.  My experience was that nobody panicked or left work to
>"head for the hills".  Rather I got calls from people eager to do
>whatever they could to prepare and requesting more detailed
>information (see point two above). Of course, we didn't tell the
>general public, only the people who work in the Courthouse.
>
>> 
>>How would you feel if you read in the paper *after* a big quake that some 
>>"official" office had data that told them about the quake but withheld it?
>> 
>
>That is why I am so concerned about advisories reaching the proper
>people in a timely manner.  We have such a high transient (general
>public) population that one of my nightmares is for an advisory to
>be issued and received by us late in the day so that by the time we
>FAX it out to all the Courthouses  everyone has left for the day and
>then for a major event to occur on the Newport-Inglewood fault at 8 or
>9 the following morning with the advisory still sitting at the FAX
>machine.  Even though we did our best, I'm sure that once the media
>learned that we had advance warning and nothing was done they would
>rip us a new asshole as only the media can do.
>
>Anyhow, that's my $.02.
>
>Chris Irwin
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>|     _____  chrisi@spock.usc.edu| Protect YOUR Second Amendment Rights --    |
>|    /       /            '  ____| Support the National Rifle Association!!   |
>|   /       /----  /---  /  (__  |-----------------|--------------------------|
>|  /_____  /    / /     /  ____) |Fight on Trojans!|Just say no to gun control|


Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes