右派网首页 | 关于我们 | 最新收录 | 文库 | Blog | 联系我们 | 留言簿 | 正體版 
About Us | 右派论坛 | 右派投票 | 政治指南针 | 右派资源 | 
首页RSS订阅 首页RSS订阅
作者 关键词
作者 关键词


右派资源



责任编辑:九喻

右派网=>汶川地震可能“漏报”的六个疑点(修订版)
关键词
汶川地震 唐山地震 预报 漏报 预测 耿庆国 陈一文 中国地震局 陈建民 宣传 地震 
相关文章
黎安友:刘晓波之死和中国当局的恐惧
余杰:共产党如何将果冻钉在墙上?
资中筠:德国法西斯的历史教训
林忌:中国人的宗教就是中国

汶川地震可能“漏报”的六个疑点(修订版)

作者:曹长青  
2008-05-28 14:55:08  
发表评论 [108]  推荐本文  正体


中国汶川大地震,死亡人数已超过六万。但在汶川地震发生不久,网上就有消息说,地震专家早就做出了预测,但中国地震局却没“预报”。当时看到这样的消息,当然非常震惊,因为如果事先知情而不发出“警报”,别说死了几万人,就是一个人丧生,也是不可挽回的生命损失,是重大责任事故,甚至是“犯罪行为”。所以当时就想根据各方消息,就“漏报”问题写篇文章探讨。但由于地震刚发生,人们都处于救灾救人的悲恸之中,情绪化的言语在所难免,再加上网络消息比较难核实,就没敢轻易动笔,毕竟“漏报”是非常重大、严肃的指控!

但中国有过“漏报”的先例,当年唐山大地震就有巨大的人为责任。钱钢的《唐山大地震》,尤其后来张庆洲的《唐山警示录:7.28大地震漏报始末》的调查报告,对此有详细记载。看张庆洲的书,令人十分悲愤,因唐山地震前夕,有很多“预测”,像唐山第八中学、第十中学的地震监测点,还有开滦赵各庄矿等都相继发出震情预报,唐山自来水公司、电厂、钢铁公司、开滦煤矿的洼里、殷各庄、新城子、河沿庄变电站等地震监测网点,以及昌黎后土桥、陡河地震台等专业月台,也都发出临震预测报告,但全都被国家地震局忽视。甚至震前14天,唐山当地知名地震监测人员田金武等人还当着来考察的国家地震局副局长查志远等百名官员和学者明确预测说,“7月底8月初,唐山地区将发生7级以上地震,有可能达到8级。”现场有人问,“你说有一个大震在哪儿呢?”田金武说,“大地震就在脚下!”可是仍然没被重视。在震前9小时,还有当地监测专家马希融向地震局发出紧急“报警”,也是没下文。唐山市“地震办”主任杨友宸还因“报警”要发生地震,惹怒领导,在震前三天,被送到“干校”改造、不许出来。结果地震办群龙无首,在地震发生前两天,任何监测数据等都没做!(注1)

中国国家地震局局长陈建民2005年底在《科学与人文论坛》上回答媒体提问时也不得不承认:唐山地震漏报是事实,地震前已出现异常现象也是事实。(注2)2006年唐山地震30周年,陈建民参加中央电视台“决策者说”节目,和主持人张羽“对谈”时也说:“唐山地震实际上还是有前兆的”。(注3)但“漏报”导致了24万人丧生!16万人残废!50万人受伤!这是多么严重的“渎职罪”!但面对这么惨重的伤亡、明显的渎职,至今却没有任何人被追究责任!!

现在汶川地震已过去两个多星期,紧急救人的阶段已结束,人们应冷静下来思考和探讨,汶川地震到底有没有被“漏报”?现在网上有很多这方面的消息,因难以核实而无法采用,但仅仅采用中国媒体的正式报导,还有可核实的海外媒体对当事人的采访等信息,基本就可以看出,这场汶川地震,很可能和当年的唐山地震一样,也有巨大的人为责任,这里起码可从六个方面探讨其可能性——

第一,地震专家耿庆国向中国国家地震局事先递交了“预测”。

早在地震刚发生时,网上就有耿庆国已预测到这场地震的消息。但对这种说法的真实性很难核实(像网上署名“茅于轼”的评地震文章,后来茅本人声明不是他写的),因此我当时给港台媒体写的评论文章,都没有用耿庆国等专家的预测。

现在看来,这个消息是真实的:香港《亚洲周刊》最近一期刊出了对耿庆国的专访(也登在该刊网页上)(注4),证实了此事。《亚洲周刊》是香港知名刊物,这篇文章不是外稿,而是该刊资深记者江迅在汶川地震发生39小时后,在北京对耿庆国的独家专访,应该是可信的。

耿庆国在这篇专访中明确说,他和一些专家不仅对汶川地震做出了“预测”,还在4月30日(地震前11天)把预测报告以“密件”发给了国家地震局。该“预测”明确指出:四川“阿坝地区七级以上地震的危险点在5月8日(前后十天以内)”。

但该报告没有引起国家地震局的任何反应。而地震正好就发生在耿庆国等专家预测的“5月8日前后十天之内”的5月12日。这是多么“精确”的预测(震级、地点、时间均明确),如果国家地震局重视这个预测,对汶川地震发出“预报”,就可以挽救六万多条人命!

耿庆国不是外行人、信口开“测”,他是原中国国家地震局专攻预测的研究员,现任“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”副主任、副主审。对这样一位资深专家的意见,国家地震局是怎样讨论的,是不是有过讨论,至今外界都不知道。如果有过讨论而否定了耿庆国的“预测”的话,现地震已发生,也证明国家地震局的判断错误。但迄今为止,人们没有看到国家地震局出面认错,他们更没有向遇难者和国人说一声“对不起”。反而在汶川地震第八天的5月20日,中国地震局监测预报司副司长车时说,这次地震前,中国地震局没收到过任何单位、个人或团体提交的预报意见;并说网上流传的所谓有人提出过预测,是不符合实际的(注5)。

这里就有一个国家地震局和耿庆国谁说谎的问题。从常识判断,国家地震局说谎的可能性比较大,因为以目前的中国国情,在“网吧”有人对汶川地震随手编个假消息都被抓走,辽宁女青年在网上骂四川灾民也被拘留,如果耿庆国没递交预测报告,敢撒这样的“大谎”,恐怕至少得被追究政治或行政责任。而且耿庆国目前还是国家单位的副主任,他不会不知道这种深浅。

而且从国家地震局面对《亚洲周刊》记者江讯追访的态度来看,也感觉他们有难言之“谎”。因被问到耿庆国“预测”报告问题时,总是推诿搪塞,甚至不敢否认。中国地震局新闻处最后答复说,“关于耿庆国的事情,不久我们会有相关信息发布。”可至今一个多星期了,也没见任何“发布”。(注6)

如果中国地震局确实没收到过耿庆国的预测报告,那么很容易回答说“没有”。现在的模糊态度,说明他们很可能收到过这份报告,只是现在无法向大众交待。一种可能是地震局预测司没有往上呈报;二是该预测意见被局里的专家和官员否定;三是可能有关部门正在做耿庆国等人的工作,要他们顾全大局,收回发出“预测报告”的讲法。但耿面对四川地震死了这么多人的现实,可能无法配合当局说谎。《亚洲周刊》的专访说,67岁的耿庆国在北京接受采访时,几次泣不成声,“为自己的研究成果没能拯救人命而悲痛”。(注7)

第二,地震专家陈一文批评中国地震局“有不可推卸的责任”。

汶川地震发生第三天的5月14日,在中央电视台(CCTV9)讨论地震的英语节目中(主持人杨瑞),参与讨论的来宾、“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”顾问陈一文在电话连线中回答:中国地震局负有不可推卸的责任!当晚该节目重播时,陈一文的意见被删除,但因这个节目是现场直播,有很多观众看到、听到(CCTV9也有这个节目的母带)(注8)。

第三,地震专家曾集体向国家地震局发出过“预警”。

陈一文后来在接受深圳作家朱健国、香港《东方日报》记者杨柳等采访时,更详细披露说,他和耿庆国等向国家地震局提交的汶川将发生强震的预测报告,是经过“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”集体讨论形成的意见,并不只是他们的个人看法。陈一文并强调,过去三年期间,“天灾预测专业委员会”曾就汶川可能发生强震,向国家地震局提出过三次(!)中期预测。熟悉国情的人都知道,在中国,“组织”的声音往往大于、也重要于个人;以组织名义发的公文,当然比个人意见更有“份量”。但即使如此,按陈一文的说法,这些预警报告也是“泥牛入海”,地震局根本不理睬。

第四,地方地震监测部门向国家地震局发出过“预报”。

陈一文对国家地震局的官僚主义一直很有意见。去年初他就在深圳接受过朱健国的专访,痛斥国家地震局领导的官老爷作风。这次汶川地震发生后,他通过地震研究的同行,拿到了一些地震局内部资料,这些资料显示:甘肃省陇南市地震监测站4月18日(汶川地震前24天)向中国地震局发出“预测”说,在4月20日至5月18日,新疆、西藏交界地区将发生七级左右地震。此外,甘肃省文县地震研究所也在3月中旬发出“预测”,四川、青海交界将发生5.2级左右以上地震。陈一文在接受香港《东方日报》记者采访时说,如果中国地震局重视这些资料,加强监测,并通报地方防范,肯定死伤不会这么严重。但是向来自以为是、认为自己才是最权威的中国地震局领导层,却对这些预警嗤之以鼻。他痛斥说,中国地震局事发前没有虚心接纳意见,事后还要谎话连篇,说没收到任何“预测”报告,试图推卸责任,实在是厚颜无耻!

按常理,不要说中国的政治制度,只是目前因地震救灾而掀起的民族主义狂热气氛(连被认为捐款不够的外国“麦当劳”店,都被围攻),如果陈一文说的这些不是“事实”,而是编造,那么他本人将惹政治麻烦,甚至可能被追究刑事责任。而至今陈一文还在接受记者采访,他本人也在自己的地震blog上发表评论(http://sea3000.com/2008/cheniwan_EQP/)。只不过迄今为止,中国的七十万记者大军,没有任何媒体去采访报导他和耿庆国,由此也可看出遇到重大事件时,更显出中国媒体没有新闻自由和专业独立。因为这样的事如发生在美国等民主国家,媒体早就会抢着采访、挖掘真相,而新闻界的“普立兹奖”,多是给那些揭露丑闻的调查性报导。

第五,中共甘肃省委书记说震前曾得到“报告”。

汶川地震发生后,新华社网页曾刊出一篇报导,介绍中共甘肃省委书记陆浩在震后的讲话。其中有这样的文字:省地震局“在震前就对这次地震的趋势做过预测,并向省委、省政府做过报告”。这些文字清楚地证明,甘肃省地震局、甘肃省委、省政府对这次汶川地震的“趋势”事先是知情的,但却没有向社会“报警”。但陆浩的这篇讲话报导在新华网刊登不久,就被删除,没有做任何解释。(注9)

后来甘肃省地震局就此发出一篇“更正”,说由于编辑“技术失误”,导致该报导“内容有误”。(注10)重新刊出的报导,把“震前”改成了“震后”,说是省地震局在“震后对这次地震的趋势做过预测,并向省委、省政府做过报告”。“震后”才对地震趋势做出“预测”并向省委报告,在逻辑上似乎有问题。而且这个“技术失误”具体指什么,是编辑“伪造”了陆浩书记讲话,把“震后”擅自改成了“震前”?以中国那种国情,不大可能有编辑“吃了豹子胆”,敢篡改省委一把手对于这么重大问题(又在敏感、关键时刻)的讲话内容。而最大的可能,是他们犯了不该把这种讲话公开发表、放到网上的“错误”,而且又被新华网转载。而现在的“更正”,给人感觉是欲盖弥彰,更说明有问题。

第六,四川军工人员等,事先得到地震通知。

在这场汶川大地震中,很多学校校舍倒塌,有几千学生遇难。但震中附近的三线军工厂和研究所人员却没听说有什么伤亡。网上有不少人披露,他们在那些研究所工作的亲属,由于事先得到地震通知,才躲过一劫。有人亲属在四川军工研究所工作,地震后,一直担心他们安危,后来终于打通电话,亲属说,他们谁都没伤着,因事先得到通知,地震时都在外面。

仅仅上述这六点,就令人无法不怀疑,这场汶川地震,是否很可能像当年唐山大地震一样,由于人为错误而没有向社会发出“预报”。唐山地震“漏报”被隐瞒了三十年,直到2006年初张庆洲的调查报告出版,才揭出真相。而汶川大地震如果“漏报”,在今天的互联网时代,可能无法掩盖很久。

结语:什么原因导致了这次很可能的“漏报”?

如果说中国地震局事先知道汶川要发生8级大地震,要有成千上万人丧生,而故意“压住不报”,这在常理上说不通。那为什么会发生目前这种状况?从目前可看到的相关信息来看,可能至少有“技术”和“政治”等两个层面的原因。

所谓“技术”原因,主要是中国地震界近年一直有“主流派”和“非主流派”之争,提出“预测”的非主流派意见被忽视。所谓主流派,主要指中国地震局官员和局里的专家等,他们多强调,目前人类的科技能力还无法准确预测地震,甚至说“地震是不可预测的”。这种理论实际上等于为一旦发生地震而事先就推掉了责任。而“非主流派”多是退休和业余的地震专家,多集中在“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”,像耿庆国、陈一文,还有对当年唐山大地震事先曾做出准确预测的汪成民等,都是“非主流派”的代表人物。他们认为“地震是可以预测的”,甚至认为“越是大地震,越容易预测”。但他们的看法遭到“主流派”的轻视和压制。耿庆国在参加香港“凤凰卫视”节目时,曾对此激愤地说,在中国,说地震是不可预测的,就是科学家;如果说地震是可以预测的,就被当成骗子。

主流派由于有地震局系统的行政权力,当然就有更多的发言权,以及对地震研究、预报的主导权。而非主流派则一直遭到冷落,甚至排斥。像耿庆国、陈一文等人以“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”的名义向国家地震局发出的“预测”,主流派根本不予理睬。用陈一文的话说,被他们“嗤之以鼻”。

这中间还有一个“唐山地震情结”。因“非主流派”中有多位曾对当年唐山地震做出准确预测,如果“非主流派”在学术和行政地位上占了上风,那么唐山地震“漏报”问题就将浮上台面,这显然是国家地震局“不愿看到的”。例如中国地震局长陈建民2006年参加中央电视台《决策者说》节目时,就地震预测问题和主持人张羽等“对谈”了六千多字(据后来文字稿),但只字没提当年“青龙县”成功预报的例子(注11)。当年唐山地震时,距震中115公里的青龙县,由于当时的县委书记冉广岐听了地震专家汪成民等的预测,做出了预报,结果虽然16万房屋受损或倒塌,但全县47万人竟无一人死亡。100万人口的唐山,24万人因地震死亡,按这个比例,如果青龙不发出“预报”,也会有大约10万人遇难。(注12)

但青龙的成功预防,一直被压制不许公开,因一旦公开,就等于告知天下,唐山大地震有巨大的人为责任。而今天中国地震界的“非主流派”中,不少人都是曾预测青龙地震的专家,如果承认他们,或让他们获得主流学术地位,等于青龙的成功预防和唐山的漏报更被“对比”出来,不仅国家地震局吃不消,甚至影响中共当局的形象,这也是“非主流派”一直无法得到官方支持的原因之一。例如陈一文在接受深圳作家朱健国采访时披露,“中国国家地震局没有在任何文字材料上留下有多人曾预报过唐山地震的痕迹。”而且国家地震局的官员还长期排斥像孙威等“数次准确预测地震”的民间地震专家。当年唐山地震时孙威还是壮年,现已是白发苍苍的古稀老人,但一直遭国家地震局权威们的压制,从唐山地震至今32年,“竟然毫无改善”!孙威写的《为唐山的悲剧不再重演》一书,也因国家地震局的某种压力,至今无法出版。

这次汶川大地震,国家地震局事先没做出预测,更无预报,已是不争的事实,而耿庆国、陈一文,还有“中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会”等“非主流派”专家,以及甘肃的地震研究人员等,都事先发出准确“预测”,但均被国家地震局无视。“主流派”的明显失职,却没被追究任何责任。而“非主流派”做出了贡献,却至今无法在中国媒体上发出声音,更别说获得肯定。它再次暴露出中国的地震预报制度、新闻制度,根本是政治制度而把“天灾”变成“人祸”、导致生命损失的严重问题!

这次汶川地震所以没被“预报”,还有一层政治因素。据报导,汶川地震前夕,正在意大利访问的中国地震局长陈建民接到四川地震“预测”报告,但他却指示,如果没有百分之百的把握,第一不要上报,第二不要公布。而且他没有立即回国,直到地震发生后才起程。从常识说,任何地震专家都无法打包票说,有百分之百把握。陈建民的问法,等于对任何地震都无法发出“预报”。(注13)

陈建民作为中国负责地震预报的最高官员,难道不知道,预测是无法做到有百分之百把握的?但陈建民所以下这样的指示,和中国主办奥运会,尤其当前的奥运圣火传递有相当的关系。因陈建民说,没有百分之百把握就不要上报和预报,是“为了不影响奥运火炬的正常传递和不引起社会的恐慌”。陈建民的这种思路,在2006年央视“决策者说”节目中就表述过,当时他说,不能轻易做出地震“预报”,因为“你报了以后,停产一天、两天、三天,老百姓都躲起来了,引起不光是经济损失,还有社会的安定、稳定的影响。”他的着眼点是“经济损失”、“社会安定、稳定的影响”。(注14)而不是“宁可错报十次,不可漏报一次”,来挽救生命。

但陈建民有他自己的逻辑,如果他发出“预报”,而汶川地震没有发生,那么造成人心惶惶,尤其被指责“制造混乱,影响奥运”,那么他就可能丢“乌纱帽”。而现在没发出“预报”,即使六万多人死亡,他还是“国家地震局长”,连对地震遇难者和国人说声“对不起,我们失职了”都不需要做。当年唐山地震所以没发出“预报”,也是担心一旦不准,唐山有开滦煤矿,一万多矿工不生产,会被扣上“破坏生产和安定局面”的政治罪名,在当时“批邓反击右倾翻案风”的政治运动气氛中,做出不准“预报”的官员可能遭整肃。而当年唐山附近有47万人口的青龙县所以敢发出“预报”,结果无一人死亡,主要在于当时的县领导冉广岐有勇气承担责任,他认为“47万人生命比我的乌纱帽重要”!(注15)

在汶川地震第二天的中国地震局新闻发布会上,新加坡《联合早报》记者对地震局新闻发言人张晓东提问说,他们接到四川地震局职工七人的投诉表示,亲人在几天前就察觉到地震的迹象,但局里说为了保证奥运前的安定局面,禁止透露这个信息。(注16)但地震局发言人没有正面回答。这一切都说明,汶川地震所以没有“预报”,和政治有相当的关系。

对于唐山地震“漏报”,过去一直有人坚持调查,要揭出真相。张庆洲的调查报告,被国家地震局阻止了五年,才得以问世。资深地震专家孙威写的《为唐山的悲剧不再重演》一书,至今无法出版。因为对唐山地震漏报,在中国仍是“禁区”,无法公开讨论,更别说追究责任。各种迹象显示,正因为当年唐山地震的教训没被吸取,才有了这次汶川地震没发出“预报”的悲剧。孙威的书名《为唐山的悲剧不再重演》真是一语成真。如果这次中国地震局仍掩盖真相,用谎言欺骗世人,那么很可能还会有下一个“唐山”、“汶川”地震的漏报,届时不知还有多少生命损失。为了死者和生者,中国有良心的记者,应该去调查、揭露真相。中国政府更有责任调查这次汶川地震没有“预报”的原因,并追究有关官员的责任,以告慰遇难者,更挽救未来可能的地震漏报受害者。

——写于2008年5月27日

注释:

注1、2、3:均来自张庆洲所著《唐山警世录:728大地震漏报始末》,上海人民出版社,2006年1月版;在这个网络可以看到全书:http://www.unicornbbs.cn/dispbbs.asp?boardID=20&ID=23709

另外,也可见香港“凤凰卫视”2005年唐山大地震25周年所作的专题片:“唐山地震漏报” ,这个网址有这个节目以及文字稿:http://n1.018098.cn/host/com/wwwm/index.php?op=col&file=read&id=33&aid=1520

注4,注6,注7:均见《亚洲周刊》记者江迅采访耿庆国:http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/Content_Archive.cfm?Channel=br&Path=2447120872/21br1a.cfm

注5:车时否定接到任何预测报告的的讲话:http://www.csi.ac.cn/sichuan/cheshi080512.htm

注8:见深圳作家朱健国对陈一文的专访:“朱健国:孙中山秘书之孙怒斥国家地震局局长——中国地震预报监督机制严重缺失亟待建立健全”,网址:http://sea3000.com/2008/cheniwan_EQP/chi.php

注9:新华社刊发陆浩讲话不久,这篇报导即被删除,但没做任何解释。但新华社原报导画面,已被从网络上截留下来。http://upfile.cat898.com/UploadFile/2008-5/200852111473895.jpg

注10:http://www.gssb.gov.cn/net/news.asp?id=1017

注11:http://www.newlandgames.cn/newlandgame/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1302836

注12:http://sea3000.com/2008/cheniwan_EQP/f7.php

注13:汶川地震时中国地震局长陈建民正在意大利访问的消息,网络上有报导,但无法得到中国媒体报导的核实,这点中国地震局会有记录,证实陈当时在国内还是国外,他是否接到四川地震预测,当时怎么回答、指示的。

注14:同注11

注15:http://www.chinazawen.cn/2006/show.aspx?id=2902&cid=8

注16:http://realtime.zaobao.com/2008/05/080513_55.shtml



———————————————
->[ 右派网 http://www.youpai.org ]


Bookmark and Share





[1] 发布者:Hugo  2008-05-28 15:29:44  

碩鼠與大地震

四川發生大地震後,小碩鼠問大碩鼠,「大地震的情況很嚴重,我黨該怎麼救災?」;大碩鼠微笑地說,「救災太費事,不如炒作新聞!多報導一些我黨的正面形象與救災功績,這樣不就可以讓人民徹底感恩戴德與鞏固我黨的政權了嗎?」

小碩鼠問大碩鼠,「大地震死了好多人,我黨該怎麼報導死亡人數呢?」;大碩鼠微笑地說,「報導死亡的人數越少越好,以免擴大災難意識,影響近期的奧運;你要搞清楚,辦奧運要緊,死幾十萬人有什麼關係?」

小碩鼠問大碩鼠,「那麼這次大地震的責任,應該歸給誰呢?」;大碩鼠微笑地說,「把大部分的責任推給老天爺,把小部分的責任推給黑心建商,這樣子我黨就不用負任何責任了,你懂嗎?」

小碩鼠問大碩鼠,「大地震的災民很多,我黨該撥多少錢賑災呢?」;大碩鼠微笑地說,「錢要留著我黨同志們來花,怎麼可以拿來賑災呢?你可以多報導一些可憐的災民鏡頭,派一些人私下鼓動捐款運動,這樣國內外的大筆捐款不就會自動送上門來了嗎?」

「記住!告訴捐款者,要捐錢,不要捐物資,這樣你我才可以藉此機會發財,你懂了嗎?」


[2] 发布者:samon  2008-05-28 15:47:58  

这样的漏报,天理不容!这次地震带来的6万死亡,是人祸,是共匪对民众犯下的新的血债!


[3] 发布者:Hugo  2008-05-28 17:02:38  

鴕鳥的悲憤

四川發生大地震後,有一群因校樓倒塌而失去獨子與獨女的學生家長們,聚集在廢墟樓前,他們悲憤地舉牌抗議,他們要求共產黨政府必須嚴逞那些「興建豆腐渣校樓工程的黑心建商」;有一位外國記者好奇地問群眾,「你們怎麼不要求嚴逞那些「核發興建豆腐渣校樓工程執照」與「因核發豆腐渣校樓工程執照而收取賄賂」的黑心官員?」

在災區外,有一群受到共產黨政府鼓動的人們,他們包圍一個捐款不力的外國商業機構,他們憤怒地喊著,「你們怎麼可以不響應我們的大地震捐款呢?」;有一位外國記者好奇地問群眾,「你們怎麼不要求共產黨政府為大地震災區撥款呢?他們不是誇說,『共產黨政府,有1兆7千多億美元的外匯存底、2008年國防費預算有4177.69億、計劃花費超過4千多億元辦奧運』嗎?」

有一位失去親人的災民,頓足捶胸與涕淚交加地破口大罵,「老天爺真是沒良心,怎麼可以降此天災呀!」;有一位外國記者好奇地問他,「你怎麼不知道這是共產黨所造成的人禍呢?」


[4] 发布者:read more  2008-05-28 18:23:08  

Need more knowledge

Read articles from professional journals first, then make comments.

Science 14 March 1997:
Vol. 275. no. 5306, pp. 1616 - 0
DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1616

Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted

Robert J. Geller, David D. Jackson, Yan Y. Kagan, Francesco Mulargia

Can the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes be predicted reliably and accurately? In their Perspective, Geller et al.'s answer is "no." Citing recent results from the physics of nonlinear systems "chaos theory," they argue that any small earthquake has some chance of cascading into a large event. According to research cited by the authors, whether or not this happens depends on unmeasurably fine details of conditions in Earth's interior. Earthquakes are therefore inherently unpredictable. Geller et al. suggest that controversy over prediction lingers because prediction claims are not stated as objectively testable scientific hypotheses, and due to overly optimistic reports in the mass media.
======================================================
Geophysical Journal International
Volume 131 Issue 3 Page 425-450, December 1997

Robert J. Geller

Department of Earth and Planetary Physics, Faculty of Science, Tokyo University, Yayoi 2-11-16, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan

Earthquake prediction research has been conducted for over 100 years with no obvious successes. Claims of breakthroughs have failed to withstand scrutiny. Extensive searches have failed to find reliable precursors. Theoretical work suggests that faulting is a non-linear process which is highly sensitive to unmeasurably fine details of the state of the Earth in a large volume, not just in the immediate vicinity of the hypocentre. Any small earthquake thus has some probability of cascading into a large event. Reliable issuing of alarms of imminent large earthquakes appears to be effectively impossible.

=======================================================

Geophysical Journal International
Volume 131 Issue 3 Page 423-424, December 1997

The IASPEI procedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors
Max Wyss11Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AL 99775-0800, USA and David C. Booth22British Geological Survey, Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LA, UK. E-mail: d.booth@bgs.ac.uk


Full scientific evaluation of proposed earthquake precursors for earthquake prediction is a problem because independent testing is difficult or impossible. To approach this difficulty, and to assess the current state of the art of earthquake prediction research, IASPEI has devised a peer-review procedure for precursor evaluation. The procedure does not consider predictions of impending earthquakes, but evaluates case histories of proposed precursors for past events according to stated validation criteria, which are specified in terms of guidelines concerning the hypothesized physical model, data quality, anomaly definition, the rules of association of precursor with earthquake, and statistical significance. So far, five precursors have been placed on a preliminary list of significant earthquake precursors, although none has satisfied the validation criteria well enough to ensure that their placement is permanent. Exclusion of a precursor from the list does not mean it is useless, but further work is required if it is to become convincing. The main objectives in producing the list are to establish a consensus on the criteria which a precursor must satisfy to be recognized as validated, and to find case histories which satisfy these criteria. Further nominations of precursor candidates are requested for evaluation by the IASPEI procedure.

=====================================================
Geophysical Journal International
Volume 131 Issue 3 Page 505-525, December 1997

Are earthquakes predictable?
Yan Y. Kagan11Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567. USA. E-mail: kagan@cyclop.ess.ucla.edu

The answer to the above question depends on the definition of earthquake prediction. We discuss several definitions and possible classifications of earthquake prediction methods. We also consider various measures of prediction efficiency, review several recent examples of earthquake prediction, and describe the methods that can be used to verify prediction schemes. We conclude that an empirical search for earthquake precursors that forecast the size of an impending earthquake has been fruitless. Despite considerable effort in several countries, no statistically rigorous validation of proposed precursory phenomena is available: therefore, reported cases of precursors can be explained by random noise or by chance coincidence. We present evidence that earthquakes are non-linear, chaotic, scale-invariant phenomena. The most probable consequence of earthquake self-similarity is a lack of earthquake predictability as popularly defined, that is a forecast of a specific individual earthquake. Many small earthquakes occur throughout any seismic zone, demonstrating that the critical conditions for earthquake nucleation are satisfied almost everywhere. Apparently, any small shock can grow into a large event. Thus, it is likely that an earthquake has no preparatory stage. This sceptical view of current earthquake prediction efforts should not be interpreted as a statement that any further attempts to mitigate the destructive effects of earthquakes are futile. The seismic-moment conservation principle, when combined with geodetic deformation data, offers a new way to evaluate the seismic hazard, not only for tectonic plate boundaries, but also for areas of low seismicity, that is the interiors of continents. Earthquake clustering with a power-law temporal decay (Omori's law) can be used to estimate the rate of future earthquake ocurrence. Realtime seismology can facilitate relief efforts after large earthquakes and eventually provide an immediate warning of severe shaking a few seconds or tens of seconds before the shaking starts.


[5] 发布者:反共故我在  2008-05-28 18:49:40  

爱国愤青何时崇拜起西方了?至于是否能预报地震,

古代张衡就有经验。看来进化论确实不灵光,分明是彻底大退化嘛。


[6] 发布者:ph2008  2008-05-28 19:29:55  

TO: read more

You are misleading by mixing up two things:

1, Are earthquakes predictable? This refers to prediction in general or using a general method.

2, Were there earthquake predictions for Sichuan earthquake? This refers to a particular case.

They don't against each other.


[7] 发布者:read more  2008-05-28 19:43:57  

无知故勇敢

[5] 发布者:反共故我在 2008-05-28 15:49:40

爱国愤青何时崇拜起西方了?至于是否能预报地震,

古代张衡就有经验。看来进化论确实不灵光,分明是彻底大退化嘛。
======================================================

只能说你没文化!后汉书中张衡的地动仪只是测方位,并不是预测。范烨的后汉书有好多记载有问题,是正史中最差的一部。
而且实际上地动仪根本就不work。它违反地震波传播的原理。复原地动仪的王振铎为了所谓的爱国主义,复制了很多假货,如指南车,司南等。
这时你倒信了中共的爱国主义宣传。


[8] 发布者:read more  2008-05-28 22:56:51  

6] 发布者:ph2008 2008-05-28 16:29:55

TO: read more

You are misleading by mixing up two things:

1, Are earthquakes predictable? This refers to prediction in general or using a general method.

2, Were there earthquake predictions for Sichuan earthquake? This refers to a particular case.

They don't against each other.
=======================================================
Answer:
1.please refer the first article published in Science and IASPEI (International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior) publication about prediction of earthquake.

"Can the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes be predicted reliably and accurately? In their Perspective, Geller et al.'s answer is "no."

2.
If answer is No for first one, which is a general rule, any prediction for Sichuan earthquake is unreliable.


[9] 发布者:read more  2008-05-29 00:03:07  

中国的航天与防务工业因为四川大地震而"损失惨重"

How to explain this?


BBC/知名的《简氏防务出版集团》报导说,中国的航天与防务工业因为四川大地震而"损失惨重"。(chinesenewsnet.com)

报导称,中国国防科技工业局局长陈求发说,中国在灾区的防务工业生产线受到了严重的毁坏。(chinesenewsnet.com)

四川成都一带历来都是中国主要军工生产地区之一,例如成都飞机制造厂、绵竹的核研究基地等等。(chinesenewsnet.com)
《简氏》发表的报导说,初步估计的损失可能高达670亿人民币(9.6亿美元)(chinesenewsnet.com)

而中国军方的高科技发展也可能受挫。其中有成都飞机制造集团主导的歼-10和JF-17/ FC-1枭龙型歼击机的生产计划可能受挫最为严重。(chinesenewsnet.com)

但是中国人民解放军在发生地震灾害之后,曾经多次表示灾区的军事设施安然无恙,没有安全的顾虑。

在四川发生地震之后,由于灾区包括了中国核研究基地,一度引起国际间的注意,担心中国的核研究设施受损。(chinesenewsnet.com)

中国军方则表示,在经过了详细的检查之后,中国的军事核研究设施"完全没有问题"。


[10] 发布者:blockbuster  2008-05-29 00:13:20  

I'd look at 2 factors: probability of the prodiction (accuracy of the research group is considered), the severity of the prodicted quake.

20% probability * 80% severity (i.e. 50% of people may die) = 16% craziness of the quake.
I'd issue a warning with probability for anything over 5% craziness.

it's funny that weather forecast tells people it will rain with a probability.
what kind of damage will a rain cause?
and what kind of damage will a 6.7 earthquake cause?

I think it's common sense.

chaos theory would suggest that nothing is predictible, it's called chaos theory after all.
you have to prove that there are no dominate factors with earthquakes in order to apply it here I guess.
bringing it out here does not seem to be very scientific to me.


[11] 发布者:read more  2008-05-29 00:58:38  

[11] 发布者:blockbuster 2008-05-28 21:13:20

chaos theory would suggest that nothing is predictible, it's called chaos theory after all.
you have to prove that there are no dominate factors with earthquakes in order to apply it here I guess.
bringing it out here does not seem to be very scientific to me.
======================================================
Do you know the butterfly effect? Lorenz proved that small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system if this factor is one of variables in this deterministic system.


[12] 发布者:美日专家  2008-05-29 01:13:15  

美日的地震预测

在日本和美国加州这些大地震频发的地区,地震部门从来没有发布过大地震预报,也从未因此受到指责。这两个国家都是在上个世纪60年代开始重视地震预测的研究,地震学家们一度对此充满了信心。但是后来发生的两个尴尬事件使这个信心深受打击。
上个世纪70年代末,日本地震学家们相信在日本中部将很快会有一场8级左右的“东海大地震”。日本东海地区据估计平均大约120年发生一次大地震,此时距上一次大地震(1854年)已过了120年,大地震的发生似乎迫在眉睫。日本政府为此采取了一系列紧急措施严阵以待。但是“东海大地震”至今还没有发生,却在1995年出乎意料地发生了死伤惨重的神户大地震。
1979年,美国地质勘探局的研究人员注意到,在加州帕克菲尔德这个地方,似乎很有规律地定期发生5.5~6级地震,平均间隔时间大约是22年。最后一次发生于1966年,据此预测下一次应该发生于1988年左右。1985年4月,美国地质勘探局发布预测,在未来的5~6年内帕克菲尔德将会发生一次大约6级的地震。地震学家们认为他们终于等来了一个可以对地震的发生进行全程监控的机会。帕克菲尔德布满了各种各样的仪器,100多名研究人员参与了这项“帕克菲尔德实验”。然而,该来的地震却没有来。在这次被称为“地震学滑铁卢”事件之后,美国地震研究也转向研究地震机理和对地震灾害的评估。2004年9月28日,帕克菲尔德地震终于姗姗来迟。


[13] 发布者:地震预测大师  2008-05-29 01:19:24  

对大师们的建议

根据大师们的说法,他们无需亲临地震发生地进行勘探,那么也应该可以预测其他国家发生的地震。世界上每年平均大约发生18次7级以上的大地震。大师们何不对未来一年内将要在世界各地发生的这些大地震一一预测一下,这样我们就知道大师们的功力了。如果担心预测国内的地震违反了《中华人民共和国防震减灾法》,预测国外的地震应该是不犯法的。


[14] 发布者:blockbuster  2008-05-29 01:21:05  

you need to prove the system earthquakes are originated fits the butterfly effect model.

you hold this opinion on earthquakes because a mouse chewed some wire 10 yeara ago in Egypt?

you may believe that, but I don't.
a load of crap.


[15] 发布者:blockbuster  2008-05-29 01:29:18  

are there fools believing all earthquakes on this plannet are caused by the same reason?
so that a pserson understands earthquakes in one place would automatically understand all sorts of earthquakes all over the world?
it's nothing but a load of crap.


[16] 发布者:常客  2008-05-29 02:04:32  

给那些冒充地震行家的几个弱智:历次成功预报地震

大陆历次成功预报地震(累计12次)


来源: 清清泉水 于 08-05-21 15:33:28
1
1971年3月23日、24日新疆乌恰县的两次地震成功预报。

2
1975年2月4日辽宁海城7.3级地震成功预报,获国家科技进步二等奖。极震区面积为760平方公里。这次地震发生在人口稠密、工业发达的地区,是该区有史以来最大的地震。由于我国地震部门对这次地震作出预报,当地政府及时采取了有力的防震措施,使地震灾害大大减轻,除房屋建筑和其他工程结构遭受到不同程度的破坏和损失外,地震时大多数人都撤离了房屋,人员伤亡极大地减少。伤亡人员总数为29579人,占总人口的0.32%,其中死亡2041人,占总人口的0.02%。伤亡人员多为老、弱、病、残、儿童和不听指挥的人。地震造成城镇房倒塌及破坏约500万平方米,公共设施损坏165万平方米,农村房屋毁坏1740万平方米,城乡交通、水利设施破坏2937个,各种设备、物资也遭到严重损失,总计约8.1亿元。地面喷沙孔大的直径达2.5米。有一地震断裂,长约5.5公里,裂缝带宽处达40米。营口市破坏面积占全市总面积的53.1%。震后,及时展开救灾工作。解放军出动了3.5万余人,1173部汽车,12架飞机参加救灾。派进灾区的医疗队达到101个,人员3480人。震后两天供水修复;2月7月灾区全部恢复供电。灾民群众在“三防”简易房欢渡了春节。交通和工农业生产一个月后基本上得到恢复。海城地震预报的成功取得巨大的社会效益和经济效益。这次预报使绝大多数居民在震前撤离了住宅区,转移了重要的物资设备,对震时易燃、易爆、泄毒等次生灾害的部位采取了紧急预防措施,避免了重大损失、收到了减轻地震灾害的实际效果。据推测,如无预报,人员伤亡将达15万人左右,经济损失将超过50亿元。

3
1975年4月6日(6.4级)至4月9日(6.6级)新疆伽师几次大地震(两次)成功预报(注:有可能在年份上与1996年混淆)。任振球:我们天灾预测委员会,在1975年4月6号还有4月9号新疆伽师几次大地震,我们当时4月3号报的,按照地震局的规定填地震预报卡,打的自费去地震局,两个处长接待我,他们说他们上午刚讨论地震预报,担心四川有地震,我说四川不会有地震,有震的是新疆南部地方就是伽师地区。后来地震预报的负责人郑大林,当天晚上把我们的预测意见传给新疆地震局了。第二天把我们的原件的复印件又传过去了。我们4月3号报的,报的是7号正负三天,在伽师有7到7.5级地震,我的判断是7 号正负一天。结果新疆地震局搁了三天,到了第三天也就是5号晚上开了会,说未来一周内伽师地区有地震,当地在全县紧急动员防震,结果全县30万人没有死一个人。6号上午震了两次地震,一个6.3级,一个6.4级。当天晚上中国地震局分析预报中心负责任人就给我们打电话,表示祝贺和表示感谢。李说这个地震是 7级水平,现在能量释放不够,还有更大的地震,结果他们没有传给新疆地震局,9号震了6.6级,死了9个人。大概15号又震了6.3级,正好头一天我到地震局,说这两天还有6级左右的余震,第二天就是6.3级。当年四月上中旬伽师地震的全过程,我们预测的都对了。

4
1976年5月29日云南龙陵、潞西7.4级地震成功预报。1976年5月29日,云南西部龙陵县先后发生两次强烈地震。第一次发生在20时23分18 秒,震级为7.3级,第二次发生在22时0分23秒,震级7.4级。龙陵地震经历了中期和短临预报的过程,并在震前采取了相应的防震措施,减少了伤亡和损失。这次地震属于震群型地震。余震活动额度高,强度大。每次地震各出现了两个极震区。自5月29日至年底共记录到3级以上地震2477次,其中,4.7、 5.9级19次,6.2级、7.3级及7.4级各一次。这次地震使云南省保山地区、临沧地区、德宏傣族景颇族自治州的9个县遭到不同程度的损失。人员死亡 98人,重伤451人,轻伤1991人,房屋倒塌和损坏42万间。受灾面积约1883平方公里。地震引起的滑坡也造成较严重损失。滑坡毁坏农房180幢,稻田、牧场、森林茶园近3900公顷,破坏渠道1126条,摧毁一座装机容量为240千瓦的水电站和三座20千瓦以下的水电站。破坏道路185公里,塌方量达78万立方米。

5
1976年7月28日唐山7.8级大地震时处于震中的青龙县成功预报了震情, 迅速疏散了所有人口, 没有发生一起死亡事件。但是遗憾的是唐山的其他地区没有能够及时发布预报,造成242769人死亡,16.1万人伤残。

6
1976年8月16日四川松潘、平武7.2级地震较成功预报,按公布短期预报算起,前后约3个月,不够及时准确。1976年8月16日,松潘、平武之间发生7.2级地震。地震属震群型,主震之后又发生22日6.7级地震和23日7.2级地震。这次地震有感范围较大,西至甘肃高台,南至昆明,北至呼和浩特,东至长沙,最大半径1150公里。震后连降暴雨,造成山崩、塌石、泥石流等,致使农田、道路、河床等破坏严重,通讯中断。耕地被毁十几万公顷,粮食损失达 500万公斤,牲畜死亡2000余头。地震发生在人烟稀少的山区,加之震前已有预报,由于四川省各级政府在震前建立了防震抗震救灾指挥部,要求各部门做好各方面准备,采取了人员撤离的措施,减轻了伤亡和损失,因此,人员伤亡仅为800余人,其中轻伤600余人。多数是由震后泥石流、山崩、滚石等次生灾害所致。

7
1976年11月7日四川盐源—云南宁蒗6.4级等地震作了较成功的短临预报。

8
1995年7月12日云南孟涟发生7.3级地震成功预报,1995年7月12日云南孟连中缅边境7.3级地震取得了长、中、短、临预报成功。云南省地震局7月11日向地、县干部会汇报,并请地方政府采取措施,大大减轻了损失,受到云南省政府及国家地震局的嘉奖。

9
1996年6月4日新疆伽师6.4级地震短临预报比较成功。1996年的新疆伽师地震,当时就通过新疆自治区的政府和各级领导,向下面发布了地震的警报,一共撤出了15万人,所以这个地震在4月6号凌晨三点、四点连续发生6.3级、6.4级地震,这个地震倒了九千间房子,但是没有一个伤亡的,这个地震预测也是取得很好的效果。

10
1997年4至6月新疆伽师6级左右强震群,预报比较成功。

11
1998年11月19日云南宁蒗6.2级地震(1998年10月云南宁蒗5.8级地震)短临预报比较成功。

12
1999年11月29日辽宁岫岩5.4级地震预报成功。岫岩地震前,辽宁省地震局在国家地震局的指导下,提出了比较明确的地震预测意见,并及时报告了省政府和国家地震局。省政府于11月27日晚召开了常务扩大会议,听取了省地震局关于地震预测意见的报告,经研究、讨论果断作出决定:通报有关市、县、乡政府并提出了应对措施。1999年11月29日12时10分,在预测的地点、时间发生了5.4级地震。由于在震前当地政府、人民群众有了充分的准备及采取了得力的避震措施,在严重破坏及毁坏了约6000间房屋的情况下无人一伤亡,实现了一次成功的地震预报。

[ 大致不错 ] 于2008-05-21 上帖强国论坛


[17] 发布者:臭皮匠  2008-05-29 02:04:45  

关于耿庆国和地震预报

预报地震关键是看“报准率”,而不是仅仅看某次地震是否报准。否则喜欢满嘴跑火车,铺天撒网的人靠瞎撞就能成为预报大家了。耿庆国在80年代到哪个城市就说哪个城市要地震,地方政府的人虽不懂地震预报的理论,但却很重视他的结论,把他捧为了上宾,并屡次请他去指导工作,结果那些地方一直没有震,到后来他再强调要有地震发生时,人家都要轰走他了。“狼来了”的故事,责任当然在牧羊小孩身上,而不是在其它人身上。

  预报地震还要看震级、时间和空间上的精确性。地震预报难在短期预报,有意义的预报也是短期预报。中期预报要容易一些。只是凭“某地要发生地震”,缺乏具体时间和具体地点,地方政府在政策上难以有可操作性。地震部门“要警惕某地可能发生地震”等警示性语言多了去了,但有多大意义?倒底有多少地震发生了?所以我们一定要明白,耿庆国的大的空间和时间尺度的“预报”所具有的意义有多大。


[18] 发布者:常客  2008-05-29 02:06:10  

发表在同一期Science上的批判地震不可预测谬论的科学论文

一些别有用心的人用Robert J. Geller等人发表在Science上的一篇文章Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted误导民众但是他们只字不提同时发表的对之
批判的科学论文

Max Wyss & Richard L. Aceves Stephen K. Park

Cannot Earthquakes Be Predicted? SCIENCE z VOL. 278 z 17 OCTOBER 1997


[19] 发布者:地震  2008-05-29 02:18:51  

要看成功率

发布地震预报,尤其是在人口稠密地区的强震的预报,不是儿戏。所以要看成功率。
且不论常客列的那些预报的真伪,请给出成功率,请列出地震部门失败的预报。你不会说只预报了这些吧?

这点统计学的基本知识都不懂,谈什么预报。包括美日在内的主要国家的地震机构里,只有共产邪党设有什么预测司,这还不说明问题?


[20] 发布者:ph2008  2008-05-29 02:34:02  

TO: read more

[8] 发布者:read more 2008-05-28 19:56:51

[6] 发布者:ph2008 2008-05-28 16:29:55

TO: read more

You are misleading by mixing up two things:

1, Are earthquakes predictable? This refers to prediction in general or using a general method.

2, Were there earthquake predictions for Sichuan earthquake? This refers to a particular case.

They don't against each other.
=======================================================
Answer:
1.please refer the first article published in Science and IASPEI (International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior) publication about prediction of earthquake.

"Can the time, location, and magnitude of future earthquakes be predicted reliably and accurately? In their Perspective, Geller et al.'s answer is "no."

2. If answer is No for first one, which is a general rule, any prediction for Sichuan earthquake is unreliable.
======================================================
I suggest you find the logic underlying the questions. I already pointed it out that they are not against each other.

A general rule does not prevent a particular predication. And the 'NO' was referring to RELIABLE and ACCURATE predications, which means we should know something not nothing of.

By the way, it is 2008. We should look around for some recent updates in the field.


[21] 发布者:ph2008  2008-05-29 02:42:43  

刚看到18楼

看来有些人是故意用选择性的资料来误导大家。

即使这样,我这样的外行都发现了他们逻辑上的不合理:用theory(非定理公理类)来否定practice。


[22] 发布者:常客  2008-05-29 05:33:11  

一些别有用心的人用Robert J. Geller等人发表在Science上的一篇文章Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted误导民众但是他们只字不提同时发表的对之批判的科学论文:

Max Wyss & Richard L. Aceves Stephen K. Park

Cannot Earthquakes Be Predicted? SCIENCE z VOL. 278 z 17 OCTOBER 1997

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;278/5337/487


Science 17 October 1997:
Vol. 278. no. 5337, pp. 487 - 490
DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5337.487


TECHNICAL COMMENTS

Cannot Earthquakes Be Predicted?

Robert J. Geller et al. are on shaky ground when they state, in the title of their Perspective (1), that earthquakes cannot be predicted. In spite of their advice, we should not stop studying the physics of preparation for catastrophic rupture, in the field, the laboratory, and theoretically; neither should we stop measuring crustal parameters that might furnish constraints for physical models; and we should continue researching statistical methods to evaluate prediction claims and to test hypotheses quantitatively.

Some of the arguments Geller et al. put forward are incorrect. For example, the "slip on geological faults" is not always as "sudden" as they state. In 10% to 30% of large earthquakes, foreshocks occur days (2) to months (3) before the main shock. Seismologists agree that foreshocks are a symptom of some preparatory process to the main rupture. Thus, foreshocks are precursors. If that process could be detected and understood by measuring the several physical parameters of Earth's crust that probably change during it, then prediction would be possible, even if foreshocks themselves can be identified with a low probability only (4).

When Geller et al. state that "[t]here are no objective definitions of `anomalies'" and that "statistical evidence for a correlation is lacking," they appear to be referring to specific papers that have been criticized (5). However, there are examples of clearly formulated, even tested, hypotheses. Evison and Rhoades (6) formulated a rigorous statistical test and applied it in real time to their well-defined hypothesis of precursory earthquake swarms. The algorithm M8 (7) has been tested in real time, and critically evaluated by others (8). The hypothesis of precursory quiescence also has been clearly stated (9), and specific predictions have been made to test it (10). On the basis of a mathematical model of failure of earth materials, the hypothesis of increasing moment release has been formulated (11) and tested by predictions (12).

Geller et al. are also incorrect in stating that "no quantitative physical mechanism links the alleged precursors to earthquakes." Laboratory rock fracture experiments have shown that dilatancy occurs in rocks under high deviatoric stresses and that rock properties are drastically altered by this phenomenon (13). Dilatancy could explain many precursors, as proposed by Scholz et al. (14). An alternate mechanism to explain precursors is a reduction in ambient stress level that results from strain softening (15) during days to years before catastrophic failure in a major earthquake. This phenomenon is routinely observed in the laboratory in stiff rock presses, and it has been modeled quantitatively by modern friction laws (16), with the result that years before large subduction shocks occur, a reduction of stress is expected near the source volume (17). Thus, several types of measurements could furnish observable precursors. Finally, the pore pressure of underground fluids, which is known to play an important role in rupture initiation along many faults (18), can be altered in a number of ways, which also could lead to precursors. Some of these models are quantitative, others not yet because too few constraints exist at this time.

Geller et al. are again incorrect when they say that "the leading seismological authorities of each era have generally concluded that earthquake prediction is not feasible." They should have added "with the current knowledge" to this sentence. I remember the frustration of Richter, when asked sensationalist questions about unfounded predictions, instead of the science of earthquakes. However, as cited by Geller et al., Richter did not advocate an opinion that earthquake prediction was inherently impossible.

Geller et al. state that they believe that earthquakes occur at random. Randomness would require the assumptions that the tectonic stress is near failure everywhere and at all times, and that the stress drops are small, depleting the local elastic energy available for further ruptures only to an insignificant degree. But the accumulation and release of strain that has been measured leading up to and following earthquakes, respectively, suggests otherwise. For example, the M7.2, Kalapana, Hawaii, earthquake in 1975 was anticipated on the basis of the observed accumulated strain (19). Over decades, compressive strain of 4 (104) accumulated, and during the earthquake the same amount of strain was released (20). This conclusion was also reached by Reid et al. (21) for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Precise leveling along the coast of Japan (22), and geological records of recent sedimentation along beaches (23) show that strain is released in great earthquakes only after it has been accumulated over centuries.

The figure in the Perspective by Geller et al. (p. 1617) does not support the idea that earthquakes are unpredictable. It shows, instead, that the sizes of cracks available for failure in earthquakes are fractally distributed. In volumes where no strain energy has been built up by tectonic processes, however, large earthquakes cannot occur, regardless of the nature of the crack distribution. Along the plate margins, where the vast majority of all earthquakes occur, the stresses are likely to be low, and the stress release may be nearly complete (24).

At the time of Columbus, most experts asserted that one could not reach India by sailing from Europe to the west and that funds should not be wasted on such a folly. Geller et al. make a similar mistake, but I doubt that human curiosity and ingenuity can be prevented in the long run from exploring fully the extent to which at least some earthquakes are predictable, although it is not easy. Such discoveries will be made in Japan, Europe, or China if the current lack of funding for earthquake prediction research continues in the United States.

Max Wyss
Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-0800, USA

REFERENCES AND NOTES
R. J. Geller, D. D. Jackson, Y. Y. Kagan, F. Mulargia, Science 275, 1616 (1997) [Free Full Text] .
L. M. Jones, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 1361 (1984) [Abstract/Free Full Text]; K. Maeda, ibid. 86, 242 (1996).
J. R. Bowman, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 61 (1996) [CrossRef].
Y. Ogata, T. Utsu, K. Katsura, Geophys. J. Int. 127, 17 (1996) [CrossRef].
"Evaluation of proposed earthquake precursors," M. Wyss, Ed. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1991); R. Geller, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1291 (1996) [CrossRef]; M. Wyss, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 3 (1997) [CrossRef].
F. F. Evison and D. A. Rhoades, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 36, 51 (1993).
V. G. Kossobokov, V. I. Keilis-Borok, S. W. Smith, J. Geophys. Res. 95, 19763 (1990) ; V. G. Kossobokov, J. H. Healy, J. W. Dewey, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 219 (1997) [CrossRef].
J. B. Minster and N. P. Williams, Eos 77, F456 (1996) .
M. Wyss and R. E. Habermann, Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 319 (1988) .
M. Ohtake, T. Matumoto, G. V. Latham, in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, D. W. Simpson and P. G. Richards, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 53-61; M. Wyss and R. O. Burford, Nature 329, 323 (1987) ; C. Kisslinger, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 218 (1988) [Abstract/Free Full Text]; M. Wyss and S. Wiemer, Geophys. J. Int. 128, 459 (1997) [CrossRef].
D. J. Varnes, Pure Appl. Geophys. 130, 661 (1989) [CrossRef].
C. G. Bufe, S. P. Nishenko, D. J. Varnes, ibid. 142, 83 (1994); S. P. Nishenko, et al., Eos 77, F456 (1996) .
A. Nur, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 62, 1217 (1972) [Abstract/Free Full Text]; K. Hadley, Pure Appl. Geophys. 113, 1 (1975) [CrossRef]; G. A. Sobolev, ibid., p. 45; W. F. Brace, ibid., p. 207.
C. H. Scholz, L. R. Sykes, Y. P. Aggarwal, Science 181, 803 (1973) [Free Full Text] .
W. D. Stuart, Geophys. Res. Lett. 1, 261 (1974) ; J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1063 (1979).
C. Beaumont and J. Berger, Geophys. J. R. Astronom. Soc. 39, 111 (1974); J. W. Rudnicki, Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 531 (1988) [CrossRef]; P. Segall and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 22155 (1995) [CrossRef] [ISI]; M. Merzer and S. L. Klemperer, Pure Appl. Geophys. 150, 217 (1997) [CrossRef].
N. Kato, M. Ohtake, T. Hirasawa, ibid., p. 249.
A. Nur and J. R. Booker, Science 175, 885 (1972) [Abstract/Free Full Text] ; R. H. Sibson, Nature Phys. Sci. 243, 66 (1973); S. A. Miller, A. Nur, D. L. Olgaard, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 197 (1996) .
D. A. Swanson, W. A. Duffield, R. S. Fiske, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 963 (1976).
M. Wyss and R. L. Kovach, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 8078 (1988) [ISI].
H. F. Reid, Bull. Dept. Geol. Univ. Calif. 6, 412 (1911).
A. Okada and T. Nagata, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst. (Univ. Tokyo) 31, 169 (1953).
B. F. Atwater, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 1901 (1992) [ISI].
M. D. Zoback, et al., Science 238, 1105 (1987) [Abstract/Free Full Text] ; M. D. Zoback and G. C. Beroza, Geology 21, 181 (1993) [Abstract/Free Full Text].
I thank S. Akasofu, J. Lahr, K. Shimazaki, C. Kisslinger, J. Freymueller, K. Berry, and S. McNutt for helpful comments. Supported by the Wadati Foundation at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 29 April; revised
9 August 1997; accepted 29 August 1997

Geller et al. (1) present an unduly negative view of research in a difficult field. At present, no mechanism for the cause of electromagnetic precursors is known well enough so that these precursors can be used reliably for earthquake prediction (2). Within the framework of the scientific method, however, refinement of a hypothesis in earthquake prediction becomes a multiyear process with infrequent experiments (that is, observations associated with earthquakes). This is the reason why most reports of precursors are written after the earthquake has occurred. It is time for earthquake prediction research to be more honestly identified as earthquake monitoring. Part of the problem is of our own making; some of us in the field have been overly quick to promise viable prediction techniques and equally quick to declare prediction experiments failures. Had we been more patient in the 1980s, monitoring such experiments as that in Hollister, California, we might have recorded the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and experiments in Palmdale, California, might have caught the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

The length of an experiment should not be an argument against the potential value of the eventual results. Not only do efforts to detect these precursory changes continue in both the United States (3) and internationally (4), but contrary to the statements by Geller et al., the VAN experiment (5) is still being actively debated and considered as a viable prediction tool. The key to assuring that these experiments are valuable is to design them to objectively define anomalies, differentiate between natural signals and noise, elucidate physical mechanisms, and provide a data set amenable to statistical analysis. The answer to whether or not earthquakes can eventually be predicted depends on how one defines the acceptable level of uncertainty associated with prediction. The field is not yet sufficiently mature to address the uncertainty in most cases. We simply have not had sufficient numbers of events to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, much less assess uncertainty or identify a physical mechanism. Whether or not a particular level of uncertainty is useful must be judged by those entrusted with public safety and decision making.

Geller et al. say that the previous 100 years of failure at prediction is an argument against future success. However, geophysically based prediction techniques are still only a few decades old, and they introduce fundamentally new and different approaches from the previous 100 years. Although we agree that earthquake hazard mitigation is more valuable in the immediate future, dismissing the field of earthquake prediction research seems premature to us. If one considers the potentially large payoff that can be realized from a successful prediction, and that at least one technique (VAN) is still being actively evaluated, one would have to conclude that earthquake prediction research should be continued and the debate left open.

Richard L. Aceves
Stephen K. Park
Institute of Geophysics and
Planetary Physics,
University of California,
Riverside, CA 92521, USA
E-mail (R.L.A.): georik@pe.net
E-mail (S.K.P.): magneto@ucrmt.ucr.edu

REFERENCES AND NOTES
R. J. Geller, D. D. Jackson, Y. Y. Kagan, F. Mulargia, Science 275, 1616 (1997) .
S. K. Park, Surveys Geophys. 17, 493 (1996); ___ M. J. S. Johnston, T. R. Madden, F. D. Morgan, H. F. Morrison, Rev. Geophys. 31, 117 (1993) [CrossRef].
E. Roeloffs and J. Langbein, ibid. 32, 315 (1994).
T. Kawase, S. Uyeda, M. Uyeshima, M. Kinoshita, Tectonophysics 224, 83 (1993) [CrossRef] [ISI].
J. Lighthill, Ed., A Critical Review of VAN (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996); In 1981 solid-state physicists P. Varotsos (V), K. Alexopoulos (A), K. Nomicos (N), and co-workers began issuing earthquake predictions based on measured changes in the electrical properties of the crust, as recorded at various sites in Greece.
4 April 1997; accepted 29 August 1997

Response: Earthquake science can achieve significant improvements in fundamental understanding of tectonics, material behavior, stress interactions, and related physical processes. It can also deliver improved seismic hazard estimation and risk reduction. However, as we pointed out in our Perspective (1), earthquake prediction would have to be reliable (producing few false alarms and few failures to predict) and accurate (with small ranges of uncertainty in space, time, and magnitude) to justify the cost of responses such as declaring a state of emergency or ordering evacuations. As decades of intensive research have not yielded positive results (2, 3), hopes for such reliable and accurate prediction appear to be unrealistic.

There are many systems whose governing physical laws are known, but whose underlying complexity and strong nonlinearity nevertheless preclude reliable and accurate prediction. For example, the rate of auto accidents can be estimated, but the time and location of individual accidents cannot be predicted. Speeding frequently precedes accidents, but only a small fraction of speeding violations are followed by serious accidents. Even after a crash has begun, its final extent and severity depend on unpredictable dynamic interactions between drivers, cars, and other objects. Predicting individual earthquakes is a still greater challenge, because we lack detailed knowledge of the relevant parameters (fault geometry, strength variations in the fault zone material, rheological properties, and state of stress), and the relations governing failure are not known. Even after faulting starts, whether any small earthquake cascades into a large one depends on details of the nonlinear interference of large amplitude dynamic stress waves in a highly heterogeneous medium. These general physical considerations, which do not rest on any particular model of the source process, suggest that the outlook for reliable and accurate earthquake prediction is bleak (4, 5).

There are four key reasons why the above comments are overly optimistic.

1) Statistically significant precursors have not been identified. The existence of foreshocks illustrates the fundamental difficulty of prediction. "Foreshocks" can be identified retrospectively: they are earthquakes that occur shortly before larger nearby earthquakes. However, there is no known way to prospectively distinguish foreshocks from random small earthquakes, although considerable efforts have been made, unsuccessfully, to find one (6). Foreshocks occur under almost the same conditions as the subsequent main shock, but their energy release is orders of magnitude smaller. Highly accurate strain measurements (5, 7) show that any physical change in the interval between the foreshocks and the main shock is extremely subtle. There is little, if any, correlation, even retrospectively, between the size of foreshocks and that of the subsequent main shock (8).

The lack of agreement among prediction advocates on a single set of "best-candidate precursors" underscores the weakness and inconsistency of their case. A committee chaired by Wyss (9, 10) compiled a list of five possibly significant precursors, which he (10, p. 12) characterizes as the "cream of the crop." Yet his comment appears to emphasize a different set of possible precursors (his references 6-12), while Aceves and Park (their references 2, 4, and 5) cite reports of possible electromagnetic precursors, some of which have been criticized by Wyss (11). To validate a prediction method, one must show it to be successful beyond random chance (12, 13), but such success has not been demonstrated in these or other studies.

The work cited in the comment by Wyss (his references 6-12) does not appear to support the existence of precursors with reliable predictive power. The "M8" algorithm (14) does not aim to make predictions of the type discussed in our Perspective; M8 instead aims to identify space-time regions where the probability of an earthquake is higher than normal. However, the alarms issued by M8 are not statistically significant (15), and some appear to be artifacts (16). Evison and Rhoades (17) showed that the precursory swarm hypothesis was not statistically significant. "Precursory quiescence" (18) is not a well-defined phenomenon, appears not to be a statistically significant precursor, and is frequently an artifact (19). A successful prediction of the 1978 Oaxaca, Mexico, earthquake was claimed on the basis of a report of seismic quiescence (20), but other analyses (21) make a strong case that the quiescence was an artifact. Kisslinger acknowledges that "the specifically predicted event has not happened" (22, p. 218).

2) A physical basis for prediction has not been established. It was briefly believed in the 1970s that dilatancy (an increase in volume of rocks before failure) occurs extensively before earthquakes [see 13, 14 in the comment by Wyss]. Some reports of possibly precursory 10 to 20% temporal changes in seismic wave velocities were cited as evidence, but were later found to be artifacts (23). Such temporal variations were not found by studies using controlled (explosive) sources (24). Recent research has placed much lower limits on possible temporal variations (25). A reported large crustal uplift in California (the "Palmdale Bulge") was interpreted by Wyss (26) as a result of dilatancy, but was later shown to have been an artifact (2, 27).

Some models (see 15-17 in the comment by Wyss) in which earthquakes have observable precursors have been proposed, but their applicability to the Earth has not been demonstrated. Studies [see 19-24 in the comment by Wyss] of strain accumulation cannot be used to make reliable and accurate predictions, because actual seismicity is highly irregular (13, 28). Wyss' statement that changes in "pore pressure of underground fluids ... also could lead to precursors" is speculation. There is strong evidence that the crust is widely in a near-failure state, in which small perturbations can trigger earthquakes. Such triggering was observed over a large area at distances of 1000 km or more from the epicenter of the 1992 Landers earthquake (29).

3) Prediction efforts based on electromagnetic observations do not seem promising. There are several problems with reports of electromagnetic precursors: the lack of statistical significance (12, 30); the absence of simultaneous geodetic or seismological precursors; the absence of coseismic (at the time of the main shock) electromagnetic signals of the same type as, but with larger amplitudes than, the alleged precursors; the fact that sources other than earthquakes have not been ruled out; the lack of consistency; and the lack of a quantitative relation between the anomalies and the earthquake source parameters.

Aceves and Park cite the VAN studies in arguing that prediction research should be continued. However, some geoelectrical signals described as precursors in the VAN studies have been shown to be artifacts (31). We have not seen convincing evidence that any of the signals observed in the VAN studies are earthquake precursors. Varotsos and his co-workers state that geo-electrical signals recorded weeks before, and at distances of over 100 km from, subsequent earthquakes were precursors (32), but this would require paths with extremely high electrical conductivity that are inconsistent with the geology of Greece (33). The VAN studies' "predictions" are vague and ambiguous, their "successful predictions" are not statistically significant, their "successes" include cases where the nominal tolerances were exceeded (34), and their "predictions" correlate much better with preceding, rather than subsequent, earthquakes, as they were issued preferentially during periods of heightened seismic activity (12, 34). Wyss (11, p. 1302) apparently shares our opinion: " ... there is nothing in favor of the VAN hypothesis."

4) Empirical prediction research seems unlikely to be fruitful. The long search for precursors has yielded none with reliable predictive power and has contributed little to understanding earthquakes. Some prediction research employs high standards, but putting the hoped-for result ahead of the scientific methodology invites a lack of rigor. Wyss says "discoveries will be made in Japan ... if the current lack of funding for earthquake prediction research continues in the United States." However, the obstacles to predicting earthquakes are the same in Japan as elsewhere; a recent review (35) criticized Japan's prediction program (36).

Emergency measures in response to predictions, as defined above, would be highly costly and would greatly disrupt society. Such measures could only be taken on the basis of a glaringly obvious precursor that almost invariably preceded large earthquakes and almost never occurred otherwise (37). Furthermore there would have to be a reliable quantitative relation between the precursor and the parameters of the impending earthquake. As the past decades of prediction research have not found any such clear and highly reliable precursory signal (2, 3), it seems likely that none exists. We therefore think that emphasis should be placed on basic research in earthquake science, real-time seismic warning systems, and long-term probabilistic earthquake hazard studies.

Robert J. Geller
Department of Earth and Planetary Physics,
Faculty of Science, Tokyo University,
Yayoi 2-11-16, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 Japan
E-mail: bob@global.geoph.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
David D. Jackson
Yan Y. Kagan
Department of Earth and Space Sciences,
University of California,
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA
E-mail: djackson@ucla.edu
E-mail:ykagan@ucla.edu
Francesco Mulargia
Dipartimento di Fisica,
Settore di Geofisica,
Universita di Bologna,
Viale Berti Pichat 8,
40127 Bologna, Italy
E-mail: mulargia@ibogfs.df.unibo.it

REFERENCES AND NOTES
R. J. Geller, D. D. Jackson, Y. Y. Kagan, F. Mulargia, Science 275, 1616 (1997) . Our definition of "prediction" follows other authorities [for example, C. R. Allen, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 66, 2069 (1976) [Free Full Text]].
R. J. Geller, Geophys. J. Int., in press.
Y. Y. Kagan, ibid.; F. Mulargia, ibid.
C. F. Richter, Elementary Seismology (Freeman, San Francisco, 1958), pp. 385-386; J. N. Brune, Eos 55, 820 (1974) ; J. Geophys. Res. 84, 2195 (1979).
H. Kanamori, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 3726 (1996) [Abstract/Free Full Text] .
L. M. Jones and P. Mólnar, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 3596 (1979) ; Y. Y. Kagan and L. Knopoff, Science 236, 1563 (1987) [Abstract/Free Full Text] .
A. T. Linde, M. T. Gladwin, M. J. S. Johnston, Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 317 (1992) ; F. K. Wyatt, D. C. Agnew, M. Gladwin, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 768 (1994) [Abstract/Free Full Text]; M. J. S. Johnston, A. T. Linde, D. C. Agnew, ibid., p. 799; D. C. Agnew and F. K. Wyatt, ibid. 79, 480 (1989).
R. E. Abercrombie and J. Mori, Nature 381, 303 (1996) [CrossRef] [ISI] ; Y. Ogata, T. Utsu, K. Katsura, Geophys. J. Int. 127, 17 (1996) .
"Evaluation of proposed earthquake precursors," M. Wyss, Ed. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1991).
M. Wyss, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 3 (1997) .
___, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1299 (1996) [CrossRef]; ___ and A. Allmann, ibid., p. 1307.
F. Mulargia and P. Gasperini, Geophys. J. Int. 111, 32 (1992) [CrossRef]; Y. Y. Kagan and D. D. Jackson, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1433 (1996) [CrossRef].
Y. Y. Kagan and D. D. Jackson, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 3943 (1995) [CrossRef].
V. G. Kossobokov, V. I. Keilis-Borok, S. W. Smith, ibid. 95, 19763 (1990).
V. G. Kossobokov, J. H. Healy, J. W. Dewey, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 219 (1997) .
R. E. Habermann and F. Creamer, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 1551 (1994) [Abstract/Free Full Text].
F. F. Evison and D. A. Rhoades, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 36, 51 (1993).
M. Wyss and R. E. Habermann, Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 319 (1988) .
P. Reasenberg and M. V. Matthews, ibid., p. 373; R. E. Habermann, ibid., p. 279; commentary, ibid. 149, 110 (1997).
M. Ohtake, T. Matumoto, G. V. Latham, in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review, D. W. Simpson and P. G. Richards, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 53-61.
T. Garza and C. Lomnitz, Pure Appl. Geophys. 117, 1187 (1979) [CrossRef]; L. Whiteside and R. E. Habermann, Eos 70, 1232 (1989) ; C. Lomnitz, Fundamentals of Earthquake Prediction (New York, Wiley, 1994), pp. 122-127.
C. Kisslinger, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 218 (1988) .
A. G. Lindh, D. A. Lockner, W. H. K. Lee, ibid. 68, 721 (1978).
T. V. McEvilly and L. R. Johnson, ibid. 64, 343 (1974); H. Kanamori and G. Fuis, ibid. 66, 2017 (1976).
J. S. Haase, P. M. Shearer, R. C. Aster, ibid. 85, 194 (1995).
M. Wyss, Nature 266, 805 (1977) [CrossRef] .
D. D. Jackson, W. B. Lee, C.-C. Liu, Science 210, 534 (1980) [Abstract/Free Full Text] ; R. O. Castle, et al., ibid. 213, 246 (1981) [Free Full Text]; D. D. Jackson, W. B. Lee, C.-C. Liu, ibid., p. 247; S. R. Holdahl, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 9374 (1982).
Y. Y. Kagan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 7 (1993) [Abstract/Free Full Text]; Physica D 77, 160 (1994); F. Mulargia and P. Gasperini, Geophys. J. Int. 120, 453 (1995) [CrossRef]; I. Main, Rev. Geophys. 34, 433 (1996) .
D. P. Hill, et al., Science 260, 1617 (1993) [Abstract/Free Full Text] .
A. J. Michael, Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 1891 (1997) [CrossRef].
S. Gruszow, J. C. Rossignol, A. Tzanis, J. L. LeMouël, ibid. 23, 2025 (1996).
P. Varotsos, K. Eftaxias, F. Vallianatos, M. Lazaridou, ibid., p. 1295; P. Varotsos et al., in A Critical Review of VAN, J. Lighthill, Ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996), pp. 29-76.
P. Bernard et al., Geophys. J. Int., in press; S. C. Stiros, ibid.
R. J. Geller, in A Critical Review of VAN, J. Lighthill Ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996, pp. 155-238).
D. Normile, Science 275, 1870 (1997) [Free Full Text] ; D. Swinbanks, Nature 388, 4 (1997) [Medline] .
R. J. Geller, Nature 352, 275 (1991) [CrossRef] ; K. Hamada, ibid. 353, 611 (1991) ; R. J. Geller, ibid., p. 612; D. Swinbanks, ibid. 370, 9 (1994); D. Normile, Science 264, 1656 (1994) [Free Full Text] ; K. Mogi, J. Phys. Earth 43, 533 (1995).
R. A. J. Matthews, Geophys. J. Int., in press.
We thank S. Stein, R. Evans, and P. Leary for valuable comments.
22 September 1997; accepted 26 September 1997


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:

Transient permeability and reseal hardening in fault zones: evidence from dilation breccia textures.
N. H. Woodcock, J. A. D. Dickson, and J. P. T. Tarasewicz (2007)
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 270, 43-53
Abstract » PDF »

Perspectives for earthquake prediction in the Mediterranean and contribution of geological observations.
B. C. Papazachos, G. F. Karakaisis, C. B. Papazachos, and E. M. Scordilis (2006)
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 260, 689-707
Abstract » PDF »

On the Validation of Earthquake-Forecasting Models: The Case of Pattern Recognition Algorithms.
(2003)
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 1994-2004

Predictions of the 1997 strong earthquakes in Jiashi, Xinjiang, China.
G. Zhang, L. Zhu, X. Song, Z. Li, M. Yang, N. Su, and X. Chen (1999)
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89, 1171-1183
Abstract » PDF


[23] 发布者:read more  2008-05-29 11:11:55  

To 常客

[22] 发布者:常客 2008-05-29 02:33:11

一些别有用心的人用Robert J. Geller等人发表在Science上的一篇文章Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted误导民众但是他们只字不提同时发表的对之批判的科学论文:

Max Wyss & Richard L. Aceves Stephen K. Park

Cannot Earthquakes Be Predicted? SCIENCE z VOL. 278 z 17 OCTOBER 1997
======================================================
一些别有用心的人? I just cited some papers. Please quote more papers to support the idea that earthquake can be predicted in accurate location, time (even in month scale) and magnitude now. Not long term probability prediction, please.

You did not read the whole article. Did you pay attention to the last part that Geller's response. Actually, in Wyss and Park's comments, they did not reject the idea that earthquake could not be predicted just before it happens.
Also, even now Wyss and Park have not provided any reliable methods to predict earthquake.

http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/Input/affiliated/max/max.html

http://earthsciences.ucr.edu/park.html

What scientist can do is just providing long term probability instead of short term forecasting.

There are many earthquake in California. And the earthquake institute of Caltech is top one in the world. I did not hear there were any reliable prediction of California earthquake prediction.

Please refer to following information.
It is from PNSN.

The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN), a member of the CNSS (Center for National Security Studies), is centered at the University of Washington's Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences . The PNSN is operated jointly by the University of Washington, the University of Oregon, and Oregon State University, and is funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy, and the State of Washington.

====================================================
http://www.pnsn.org/INFO_GENERAL/eq_prediction.html

Earthquake Prediction
By Ruth Ludwin
Because of their devastating potential, there is great interest in predicting the location and time of large earthquakes. Although a great deal is known about where earthquakes are likely, there is currently no reliable way to predict the days or months when an event will occur in any specific location.

Worldwide, each year there are about 18 earthquakes magnitude (M) 7.0 or larger. Actual annual numbers since 1968 range from lows of 6-7 events/year in 1986 and 1990 to highs of 20-23 events/year in 1970, 1971 and 1992. Although we are not able to predict individual earthquakes, the world's largest earthquakes do have a clear spatial pattern, and "forecasts" of the locations and magnitudes of some future large earthquakes can be made. Most large earthquakes occur on long fault zones around the margin of the Pacific Ocean. This is because the Atlantic Ocean is growing a few inches wider each year, and the Pacific is shrinking as ocean floor is pushed beneath Pacific Rim continents. Geologically, earthquakes around the Pacific Rim are normal and expected. The long fault zones that ring the Pacific are subdivided by geologic irregularities into smaller fault segments which rupture individually. Earthquake magnitude and timing are controlled by the size of a fault segment, the stiffness of the rocks, and the amount of accumulated stress. Where faults and plate motions are well known, the fault segments most likely to break can be identified. If a fault segment is known to have broken in a past large earthquake, recurrence time and probable magnitude can be estimated based on fault segment size, rupture history, and strain accumulation. This forecasting technique can only be used for well-understood faults, such as the San Andreas. No such forecasts can be made for poorly-understood faults, such as those that caused the 1994 Northridge, CA and 1995 Kobe, Japan quakes. Although there are clear seismic hazards in our area, Pacific Northwest faults are complex and it is not yet possible to forecast when any particular fault segment in Washington or Oregon will break.

Along the San Andreas Fault, an earthquake prediction was made in the 1980s for the segment near Parkfield CA considered likely to rupture. Earlier this century it produced a series of identical earthquakes (about M 6.0) at fairly regular time intervals. Using a set of assumptions about fault mechanics and the rate of stress accumulation, the USGS predicted that a Parkfield earthquake of about M 6.0 earthquake would occur between 1988 and 1992. USGS scientists monitored Parkfield for a wide variety of possible precursory effects, but the predicted earthquake did not materialize until 2004, long after the prediction window expired. "Capturing" the magnitude 6.0 Parkfield earthquake in a dense network of instrumentation was a significant accomplishment, providing data to determine whether precursory effects exist (none were found), and give new insights on the mechanics of fault rupture More from the USGS...More from CISN.

The segment of the San Andreas fault that broke in the 1989 M 7.1 Loma Prieta or "World Series" earthquake had been identified by the USGS as one of the more likely segments of the San Andreas to rupture. Magnitude 5+ earthquakes 2 and 15 months before the damaging earthquake were treated as possible foreshocks, and the USGS issued 5-day Public Advisories through the California Office of Emergency Services. Even in areas where foreshocks are fairly common, there is no way of distinguishing a foreshock from an independent earthquake. In the Pacific Northwest, there is no evidence of foreshock activity for most historic earthquakes.

One well-known successful earthquake prediction was for the Haicheng, China earthquake of 1975, when an evacuation warning was issued the day before a M 7.3 earthquake. In the preceding months changes in land elevation and in ground water levels, widespread reports of peculiar animal behavior, and many foreshocks had led to a lower-level warning. An increase in foreshock activity triggered the evacuation warning. Unfortunately, most earthquakes do not have such obvious precursors. In spite of their success in 1975, there was no warning of the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, magnitude 7.6, which caused an estimated 250,000 fatalities.

Earthquake prediction is a popular pastime for psychics and pseudo-scientists, and extravagant claims of past success are common. Predictions claimed as "successes" may rely on a restatement of well-understood long-term geologic earthquake hazards, or be so broad and vague that they are fulfilled by typical background seismic activity. Neither tidal forces nor unusual animal behavior have been useful for predicting earthquakes. If an unscientific prediction is made, scientists can not state that the predicted earthquake will not occur, because an event could possibly occur by chance on the predicted date, though there is no reason to think that the predicted date is more likely than any other day. Scientific earthquake predictions should state where, when, how big, and how probable the predicted event is, and why the prediction is made. The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council reviews such predictions, but no generally useful method of predicting earthquakes has yet been found.

It may never be possible to predict the exact time when a damaging earthquake will occur, because when enough strain has built up, a fault may become inherently unstable, and any small background earthquake may or may not continue rupturing and turn into a large earthquake. While it may eventually be possible to accurately diagnose the strain state of faults, the precise timing of large events may continue to elude us. In the Pacific Northwest, earthquake hazards are well known and future earthquake damage can be greatly reduced by identifying and improving or removing our most vulnerable and dangerous structures.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected References
An Evaluation of the Animal-behavior theory for earthquake Prediction, 1988, R.B. Schall, California Geology, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 41-45.
An Evaluation of the seismic-window theory for earthquake prediction, 1981, M. McNutt and T.H. Heaton, California Geology, January, 1981, pp. 12-16.

Circum-Pacific seismic potential: 1989-99, 1991, S.P. Nishenko, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 169-259.

Earthquake Research at Parkfield, California, for 1993 and Beyond - National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council Working Group, 1994, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1116, 14 p.

Earthquakes, 1992, B.A. Bolt, W.H. Freeman and Company, 331 p.

The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989 - What Happened - What is Expected - What can be done, 1990, P.L. Ward and R.A. Page. U.S. Geological Survey

Predicting the Next Great Earthquake in California, 1985, R.L. Wesson and R.E. Wallace, Scientific American, Vol. 252, No. 2, pp. 35-43.

Prediction Probabilities from Foreshocks, 1991, D.C. Agnew and L.M. Jones, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. B7, pp. 11,959-11,971.

Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake, 1993, W. Spence, R.B. Herrmann, A.C. Johnston, and G. Reagor, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1083, 248 p.

Self-Organized Criticality, 1991, P. Bak amd K. Chen, Scientific American, January, pp. 46-53.


[24] 发布者:灾后重建豆腐渣  2008-05-29 11:19:17  

大地震 一个建筑老板对地震灾后重建的警告

笔者认识一个建筑企业的老板,他也力争要分灾后重建一杯羹。我问他:"这次地震中,一些地方倒塌最多的建筑是学校,大批学生死不瞑目。你是否相信这些建筑都是'豆腐渣工程'?"

他回答得很干脆:"倒塌楼房的预制板中没有一根钢筋,这还用问吗?别说我是搞建筑的,就是傻瓜也看得一清二楚!"

我说:"那你们在灾后重建中一定要引以为戒,自觉杜绝'豆腐渣工程'啊!"

他惨然一笑:"实话告诉你,难啊……"

我大吃一惊:"这是灾后重建,你们还要建'豆腐渣'!就不怕遭报应吗?"

"报应?地震就是报应!但是除了地震,又有谁来报应?"他说,降低抗震标准是建筑开发行业的"潜规则",从建筑商、开发商、业主单位到一些参与规划、开发、招投标、建设、监理的人员,往往对此都心照不宣,只要把各个环节都"打点"到位,就不会有人追究。

他担心,灾后重建中的"豆腐渣工程"可能更多。一是因为大规模、大面积的建设项目需要在一段时间内集中完成,规划、招投标、监理等环节任务更紧张,工作量更大,监管的难度必然更大,这样一来,建筑商、开发商建"豆腐渣"的风险反而更低。其二,建筑商、开发商很清楚,一个地方发生大地震的概率很低,同一个地方短期内重复发生大地震的可能性更低。基于这个判断,一些建筑商、开发商大搞"豆腐渣"只会更加肆无忌惮,更加心安理得……

他的分析在逻辑上无懈可击,又符合建筑开发行业的实际情况。天哪,太可怕了。我绝望地问:"难道就一点儿办法也没有了吗?"

他表情轻松了一些:"办法也不是没有,关键是敢不敢动真格。"

他说,记得九八年抗洪的时候,江西九江长江大堤轰然坍塌,朱镕基总理大骂这个大堤是"豆腐渣工程"、"王八蛋工程",但事后并没听说有人被追究责任。今年年初南方雪灾,通信过程中也暴露出一批"豆腐渣",但也没听说要追究责任。非惩前不能毖后,这一次,如果不想在灾后重建中出现更多"豆腐渣",必须先严惩地震中暴露"豆腐渣",舍此别无他法……

灾后重建可能有更多"豆腐渣工程"!这是一个良知未泯的建筑老板的警告。有关决策部门、监管部门的官员、工作人员,你们听到了吗?警醒了吗?


【 阿波罗新闻网2008-05-29讯】


[25] 发布者:反共故我在  2008-05-29 12:16:22  

网络五毛们紧跟中宣部的调子,反对舆论追究豆腐渣工程,地震预测和人祸的罪行,赤膊上阵么。

如果人类无视地震前夕自然界动物界反常现象,甚至为了稳定独裁的暴政压制地震的预测,结果导致大灾难,四川民众用6万多条生命付出代价。

那些紧跟主子的共匪五毛,突然高呼科学无用口号了?人定胜天的狂胆都去哪了?都被主子收拾了? 可耻!


[26] 发布者:常客  2008-05-29 12:24:51  

给23楼:再贴一遍,地震预测的偏差只有三天!

给23楼:再给你贴一遍,地震预测的偏差只有三天!

给23楼不识字的五毛干将:你要地震预测证据,还要精确到时间地点,我上面的贴你不看的?你不会不识字吧?那就是在这里恶意捣乱了。(再有类似捣乱贴,建议网管删除!)

再给你贴一遍,选了其中一个例子,地震预测偏差只有三天!
-----------------------------------------------

1975年4月6日(6.4级)至4月9日(6.6级)新疆伽师几次大地震(两次)成功预报(注:有可能在年份上与1996年混淆)。任振球:我们天灾预测委员会,在1975年4月6号还有4月9号新疆伽师几次大地震,我们当时4月3号报的,按照地震局的规定填地震预报卡,打的自费去地震局,两个处长接待我,他们说他们上午刚讨论地震预报,担心四川有地震,我说四川不会有地震,有震的是新疆南部地方就是伽师地区。后来地震预报的负责人郑大林,当天晚上把我们的预测意见传给新疆地震局了。第二天把我们的原件的复印件又传过去了。我们4月3号报的,报的是7号正负三天,在伽师有7到7.5级地震,我的判断是7 号正负一天。结果新疆地震局搁了三天,到了第三天也就是5号晚上开了会,说未来一周内伽师地区有地震,当地在全县紧急动员防震,结果全县30万人没有死一个人。6号上午震了两次地震,一个6.3级,一个6.4级。当天晚上中国地震局分析预报中心负责任人就给我们打电话,表示祝贺和表示感谢。李说这个地震是 7级水平,现在能量释放不够,还有更大的地震,结果他们没有传给新疆地震局,9号震了6.6级,死了9个人。大概15号又震了6.3级,正好头一天我到地震局,说这两天还有6级左右的余震,第二天就是6.3级。当年四月上中旬伽师地震的全过程,我们预测的都对了。


[27] 发布者:目瞪口呆  2008-05-29 13:30:17  

中共請日本空軍救中國人, 這不「傷害中國人的感情」嗎?

“崛起的”中國的“愛國瘋”、憤青們被教化得從不把 “小日本”看在眼裡, 罵 “日本軍國主義”不斷,視為不共戴天的永遠敵人。 現在偉大的黨竟要請日本空軍(日本自衛隊空軍)來救中國災民了, 這不「不傷害中國人的感情」嗎? 中國“愛國瘋”、憤青們能嚥得下這口氣嗎?


新聞:中国请求日本运送援助物资 日方考虑派自卫队飞机

2008-05-28

据日本政府官员28号透露,中国政府27号向日本政府发出请求,希望能为四川灾区提供并运送帐篷、毛毯等援助物资。日本政府28号决定接受中国政府的请求,使用自卫队飞机向中国运送救灾物资,支援四川地震灾区。日本社民党反对派自卫队飞机前往中国。自由亚洲电台特约记者南洲发自日本东京的报导

据日本政府官员28号透露,中国政府27号向日本政府发出请求,希望能为四川灾区提供并运送帐篷、毛毯等援助物资。日本政府28号决定接受中国政府的请求,决定将向中国派遣航空自卫队的C130运输机向中国运送救灾物资,支援四川地震灾区。

四川大地震已经造成670余万人无家可归,不得不过着不便的避难生活,帐篷及毛毯等救援物资的分发已经成为难题。

在此情况下,日本内阁官房长官町村信孝在28号下午的记者招待会上表示,中国政府27号通过驻北京的日本大使馆,向日本政府提出了救援物资的提供及运输请求。町村表示:他说,“我们将中方的意思理解为希望自卫队能够用飞机将自卫队拥有的帐篷和毛毯等运抵中国的机场。”

随后,日本政府基于国际紧急援助队法,决定将向中国派遣航空自卫队的C130运输机,用于运输自卫队拥有的帐篷、毛毯以及医药品等救援物资,并无偿的转送给灾区。

迄今为止,日本政府除了在首相出访中国时派遣航空自卫队使用的政府专机之外,也曾在回收原日本军队在中国残留的化学武器时派遣自卫官。如果此次航空自卫队飞机被派遣,将是自卫队部队首次进入中国。

就此,外相高村正彦对记者团表示:他说, “地震造成了巨大的损失,作为邻国,我们将提供力所能及的帮助。如果接到具体的请求,我们将积极回应。”

日本社民党党首福岛瑞穗28号在记者会上表示,反对日本政府应中方要求派遣自卫队飞机向中国运送四川地震救灾物资。她表示:“应该考虑到中国国民的感情,我们反对。自卫队不是救灾组织,应该慎重对待。”

以上是自由亚洲电台特约记者南洲发自日本东京的报导
http://www.peacehall.com/forum/200805/renquan2008/152899.shtml.....


[28] 发布者:說奴兵  2008-05-29 14:28:22  

餓二十多個小時以上也不敢叫餓的救災奴兵

看見那些在非常危險的境地的救災的中共士兵赤手空拳, 只有肉體, 連把鏟子、頭盔也沒有, 本人第一印象是他們的上司太可惡, 他們很可憐!

中共軍隊作為中共獨裁者的私家軍, 其指揮者令人厭惡, 但對最下層的士兵, 本人則常有惻隱之心。這些絶大多數出身於貧苦農民家庭的奴兵, 在戰爭中,是人海戰術的砲灰; 在和平的日子裡, 是當權者維護獨裁專制統治的不能有個人靈魂和意志、只能“不怕犧牲, 勇往直前”的賤價工具。

在六四天安門事件, 奴兵被當權者驅使去屠殺學生, “被迫”當劊子手 --- 他們必須射殺學生, 按時攻佔廣場, 否則, 他們必受軍法懲處, 死的是他們自己。在任何不是你死就是我死的 “你死我活”的戰場, 在生死的一刻, 人們出於“天性”往往選擇的, 是要別人死, 自己活, 因而甚麼殘忍都做得出來。因此, 繼日軍在中國的“三光政策”後, 中共軍隊在越南也實行“三光政策”;因此, 既受主人蒙蔽, 更為“保己命”, 在六四事件, 中共軍人屠殺學生不留情…。

本人對被殺的反貪、爭取民主的學生充滿敬意和同情的同時, 對被中共蒙騙、驅使、驅迫去殺人, 而自己也死了的奴兵(據網上資料,有的被中共軍隊自己誤殺) ---- 貧苦農民的子弟, 也有同情之心。

在地震中, “溫 家 寶…… 在 電 話 中 喊 叫 : 「 我 不 管 你 們 怎 樣 , 我 只 要 十 萬 群 眾 脫 險 , 這 是 命 令 ! 」 「 我 就 一 句 話 , 是 人 民 在 養 你 們 , 你 們 自 己 看 辦 ! 」”,此話好不鏗鏘, 但是他們派去搶險的兵(而且不是即時派, 有充份時間裝備), 卻都是赤手空拳, 難道這些奴兵不是人嗎? 這令人想起中共慣於使用的草菅兵命的“人海戰術”。 (對比一下,胡溫及中共軍幹們,他們自己的公子千金過的是甚麼樣的生活!)。

中國開放後, 被外國資金養得兵強馬壯的中共軍隊, 很有錢, “殺人的”海陸空裝備都是世界一流的, 但是“救人的”裝備則極其原始, 搶險及做其他危險工作的奴兵, 常常只能赤手空拳。獨裁者不把“敵人”當人看, 也不把自己的奴兵當人看。
###########################

後記:
看今天的親共衛視, 看到一個鏡頭:一個災區的老太婆攔著救災的戰士, 堅決要他們收下他們的食物, 戰士們最後收下了。電視旁白說:戰士們收下的食物是這些戰士22個小時以來唯一吃的食物。

一般受中共教化的中國人對這電視新聞的解讀是:解放軍真是“一不怕苦, 二不怕死”, “軍民一家親”。這也是親共電視要給電視觀眾的信息。

但是, 本人的對此的第一感覺是憤怒 : 中共不把奴兵當人看!22個小時如此超體力的又累又臭的艱苦活, 竟可讓奴兵如此地餓着肚子!有的可能餓更長的時間。奴兵們長期餓著肚子做如此艱難的救災苦工, 不會有偒的、死的?而且奴兵再餓,也不能叫餓, 敢叫餓嗎?不會餓昏嗎? ……奴兵被當作非肉體的工具……

沒有人知道, 在救災中有多少奴兵及其他救災人員偒亡。這些數字, 是 “國家機密”, 正如中國人永遠也不會知道在韓戰、兩次越戰、在無數的開山築路、核試驗場……死了多少奴兵一樣, 這次奴兵的傷亡人數也不會有人知道。中國奴民也沒興趣知道, 他們己習慣他們和奴兵同樣的奴命, 和當權者一樣, 視奴兵為沒生命的工具。

(又, 見到電視上的一些奴兵,總算手中有把鏟子, 不必只用手來挖, 也算上級 “開恩”了。)

人們常說美軍是“少爺兵”, 待遇好。其實, 美國軍人的訓練很辛苦, 要求也很嚴格, 但是, 他們每個人都有人權。他們受紀律約束, 但每個人同時又是自由人, 更不是機械的工具。而獨裁者私家軍的奴兵呢?……


[29] 发布者:粉丝  2008-05-29 21:30:04  

赞 赞 赞




[30] 发布者:A right supporter  2008-05-30 05:26:13  

能预测地震是好事啊!为什么有人发言说不能预测呢?难道预测出来对他们不利? 预测不出反而是好事?!

那些认为不可预测的,绝不是地震局的官员们,可以用不可预测的论调来推卸责任!

那他们代表什么呢?

按照我的理解,他们也许是代表官方的网络传言的党托评论员吧,不知是错否?也请网友的慧眼来判断吧!








最新评论
  • 2017-10-21  [早立]:习被称领袖 说话箕数 习总称为领袖 果然发出
  • 2017-10-21  [老右派]:资先生令人敬佩 喜欢读资先生的文章
  • 2017-10-17  [早立,]:起來不愿受奴役的人民 面对强敌一筹莫展 今有
  • 2017-10-17  [早立,]:起來不愿受奴役的人民 面对强敌一筹莫展 今有
  • 2017-10-17  [结构]: 没有自然形成的饮食,服装,文字,民俗等的一
  • 2017-10-17  [结构]: 中国,自古也不是一个国家概念。否则中国历史
  • 2017-10-17  [结构]:关于“中国”这个概念 中国不是一个民族概念,
  • 2017-10-11  [,早立]:用正能量傅递一个讯息 尊敬的习总 你最親信的
  • 2017-10-11  [,早立]:用正能量傅递一个讯息 尊敬的习总 你最親信的
  • 2017-10-10  [早立]:抗日八年和人民抗日六十七年总共是抗日七十五年

  • 每日旧文回放
  • 刘军宁 :文明即驯化--用宪政驯服统治者
  • 刘军宁 :极权主义与恐怖主义
  • 少正卯 :运动与右派
  • 余杰 :黑帮老大过生日
  • David Burchell :别忘了!中共杀死数千万人
  • 寒山 :赞比亚的枪声和中国的矿难
  • 何清涟 :中国的反精英情绪从何而来?
  • 高胜寒 :罗姆尼的亿万富翁之路
  • 何清涟 :天堂与地狱:中国政商结合的路径指向
  • 易邦 :论三权分立



  • 右派网首页  关于我们  右派论坛  联系我们  政治指南针  右派资源  作者登录  

     右派网logo © youpai.org, All Rights Reserved.