Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 1

Old talk
I'll put the external links in later. This is a controversial topic and there are sooo many! Zeizmic 14:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)

EARTHQUAKE PREDICTIONS Earthquake predictions are easy with the invention of modern machines. Using this same technology, they have seen the places which are vulnerable to earthquake, so they can have special TV channels for these places, to show the movement of the tectonic plates, so they can be prepared for it.

~Kathy Waterbuck

History of Earthquake Prediction
I made some MAJOR edits to this page to clean it up and simplify it for the average reader. This is an encyclopedia afterall, not a classroom text. I also felt a lot of the stock market information did not contribute much to this article. If one would like it put back in, I suggest a massive rewrite to clarify it.

I think a new section entitled "The History of Earthquake Prediction" would be pretty nice to have. Detailing ancient Chinese observations on how animals acted (and how they met with both success and failure at using this method) and onward to modern predictions (Japan/Taiwan, Parkfield, Dr. K-B, modeling they are doing at UC Davis). RockBandit 07:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

For the world scientists and politicians

Petition

Today, when many children become victims of the earthquakes we turn to the scientists and politicians around the world to create an International System for Earthquakes Prediction. This system was developed in Israel to serve all people around the globe regardless of their race and religion.

Here what has been done so far: 1. A prototype of the System created and tested in the Lab supporting the following features: · Predicts the beginning and the end of the earthquake, accuracy 5 –10 minutes. · Earthquake magnitude, accuracy 0.5, magnitude >4 · Location, accuracy 10-20 km · Predicts well in advance before the earthquake (2hours – 5-7 days) On the graph attached to the blog you can see how accurate the predicted peaks of KaY-wave match the real peaks measured by sensors.

http://tectonica-blogger.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_8632.html

http://tectonica-blogger.blogspot.com/2008/08/blog-post.html

2. The project received a positive review of the Chief EK of Russian Academy of Science based at the request of MHS, but was not implemented due to “a lack of funding for the international projects” in the Russian budget.

http://tectonica-blogger.blogspot.com/2008/08/opinions-of-experts.html

3. The System has an international patent filed.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENG&DBSELECT=PCT&SERVER_TYPE=19-10&SORT=41227366-KEY&TYPE_FIELD=256&IDB=0&IDOC=581459&C=10&ELEMENT_SET=B&RESULT=1&TOTAL=1&START=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,AN,PA,ABSUM-ENG&SEARCH_IA=IL2007001280&QUERY=%28PA%2fYagodin+AND+PA%2fAlexandr%29+

4. The fact of four earthquakes predictions was confirmed and certified by lawyer.

I ask you for an urgent establishment of a Fund to support the research of earthquakes predictions, before the next catastrophic earthquake strikes, before other children die. These children are not guilty that we are not ready to fight against the Nature.

In order to create a working system I need 3 millions dollars. We have an engineer ready to start working on the project (many years of experience, graduated from Technion, Israel), however we don’t have a budget…

Best regards,

Alexander Yagodin.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.56.205 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy in trying to predict earthquakes.
I removed the following:

"For example the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger during a cold weather launch would not be the sort of scientific experiment that one would want to 'repeat' as many times as necessary to be 'sure' before taking action or drawing conclusions. In such a case, a single data point is more than sufficient to draw conclusions thereby."

I think it really has nothing to do with this article and the way it is written is especially confusing. It is my opinion that we should leave it out, especially since it really doesn't contribute to the article in a meaningful way.

I also think the ending of this section should be rewritten somehow when talking about controversy in trying to predict earthquakes. RockBandit 07:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction: Chinese
according to this article and the "Early warnings" section of the article "Tangshan earthquake", predictions saved thousands of Chinese. Which was good. This article described how did they issue warnings.--Skyfiler 15:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Excepting one web-page that was published after the Sechuan earthquake, are there any solid references that there was any sort of 'less-than-vague' prediction? The one 'solid' reference is extremely vague, i.e.  "within a year (2008.5-2009.4) should pay attention to the south of Lanzhou, Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai may occur near the junction 6 -7-Level earthquake". It's a huge area and a long time scale to be a 'prediction' of any worth. Fremsley (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That Web page is a copy of a Hongkong based blog entry.  I added a Beijing based counter claim aggregated on the same Canadian site.  But the entire paragraph about these Web-based claims and counter claims would better be removed. Sillyvalley (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is a basic policy, not just a guideline. We can't use a web page that isn't there or a blog as a source, so I've deleted them. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the Nature article, the more than 20 warnings in the 1990s are unofficial, therefore, it shouldn't look as if "the Chinese government" sent them (if they did, the warnings should have been official) and I've edited this. UnknownC (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

'deploy imminent works' - meaning unclear Notreallydavid (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Cut from article
I cut this from the article (by 195.96.232.207 dated 24 August 2005):
 * It is not true that the earthquakes are random geologic events without cycles or patterns. All in the NATURE is determined and only our limited knowledge is a reson to state about earthquakes unpredictables. Let us remember the Black Body problem, Plank formulae and Quantum Mechanics of Hidrogen Atom. Let us remember that many people stated that it is not possible to fly in the atmosphere, to fly in a space, to visit a Moon.
 * Please, visit for more explanations and examples the site Earthquake Prediction Using Reliable Earthquake Precursors- http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~mavrodi/.

Rl 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good State
I just reviewed this article and think it is a state ready for the printer. :) --Zeizmic 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Earthquake rules
Just a note for your evidence:

Earthquakes, at least some, indicate high coincidence with sextil (60°), trigon (120°), kvintil (72°) or other aspectation of Neptune with other planet, and possibly sextil (60°) of Venus with other planet, being combined and empowered by other aspects... Could you believe that anything happens at random?

The earthquake power comes from tectonic plates, but something must shake them first, be it a volcano or gravity resonance between planets. And shorthand prediction by cloud shapes and bird flight is not that bad idea, since the clouds are directed by moon & planet gravity resonance also... One cannot predict area, where earthquake strikes, but birds do feel it...

This is not my original invention, i have already read this in a calendary by Maria Thun ...

But what would be the earthquake date prediction good for? What would help knowing the date? Fear at every possible place, watching birds and clouds... These aspectations happen more times per year, and not all yield the measurable earthquakes...

Semi Psi 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following sentence. Which man ? When ? How ?

There is a man in southern California who keeps track of missing cats and dogs reported in his local newspaper. Approximately 7.5 times more animals go missing about a week before a major earthquake. This man has issued earthquake warnings based on this with about 75% accuracy.

wrong sentence
In Controversy in trying to predict earthquakes there's the sentence:
 * It is called The Earthquake Weather Project, a web-based held beliefs mentioned above, no doubt adding to the controversy surrounding earthquake prediction.

Something is wrong with this sentence - someone who knows the history of the page or is willing to look it up might want to correct this. Boud 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John McCloskey's Earthquake Forecast
John McCloskey forecast correctly a 28 March 2005 earthquake registering 8.7 on the Richter scale that shook Sumatra, just south of the epicenter of the 2004 Boxing Day earthquake. His team the the University of Ulster used finite element analysis to map stress reorganization after the Boxing Day earthquake. His prediction was first publicised at the Irish Geological Research Meeting on the 20 February 2005, which I attended. He said that an Earthquake was imminent south of the Boxing Day earthquake's epicenter and that it would happen within a year. He also gave a good estimate of the earthquakes magnitude (8-8.5). In rare cases, after a large earthquake, a forecast indicating aftershocks on specific faults and fault segments can be made using finite element analysis. It is likely that these techniques will improve.

Here is John's prediction published in Nature on the 16th March 2005 and a BBC news story. -Diamonddavej 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the summary above. There's nothing in the Nature article nor the news story about an M8+ nor 1 year. McKloskey said ""The huge changes in stress mean that I am comfortable talking about a significant increase in the risk of another quake. But that is as far as I am prepared to go," Professor McCloskey told the BBC News website." He also mentioned two or three other faults with similar increased chances of earthquakes. He simply says the chance of future quakes are increased, which is true around any large earthquake. He further identifies a set of faults which were particularly stressed, and one did have an earthquake, which is notable, but not a specific prediction. (John 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Earthquake early warning
A subject touched on at the end of the article is earthquake early warning. This is has been receiving quite a lot of attention in the past few years. There really should be a seperate heading. Before I make the edit and add to it, does anyone object, as it strictly isn't earthquake prediction? Joeski McLoeski 10:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea, many people are confused between the extreme difficulty of predicting earthquakes and the simple physics of measuring an earthquake to tell how the elastic waves already generated will spread to cause damage. I think you should clearly cross-link the topics of prediction and early warning so that people who are confused can easily get on the right track. (John 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Recent entries
The first part of the article now reads like an advertisement for someone attempting to shill a product. Needs rewriting. 24.17.171.84 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article looks objective to me now. Maybe someone has fixed it since this complaint  (John 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Anon material removed
I removed material from Earthquake warning system that I thought had inappropriate tone and unreferenced technical speculation. Additional material of a similar nature was inserted in this Earthquake prediction by the same contributor so I also removed this. These were contributions by 12.65.192.128 at 12:54 25 August 2007 and earthquake warning system 12.65.216.70 at 20:25 and 20:42 25 August 2007, same style for both IP addresses. Interestingly, it turns out that despite the massive churn in this lengthly interval there appear to be no meaningful contributions since then. Please check my work to confirm this. Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sollog
Sollog is a notable quake predictor and should therefore be included in this article.Arnold1 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

He claims a lot, but I've never seen any proof that his predictions are worthwhile, he predicts so much stuff, and so vague that some of it is bound to happen, the stuff that doesn't happen gets conveniently forgotten. It would be better to keep the crackpots out of the article unless maybe if a mainstream respectable media source or scientist accepts them as being correct a statistically notable percentage of the time. This is not the case with Sollog, nor any of the other 'prophets' that I have ever seen. Magnum pi moustache (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sparrows remained outside on the ground after dark the evening before the 1999 Taiwan quake
My wife, Deng Yingyu says the sparrows refused to return to their nests at her school the evening before the 1999 Taiwan earthquake. Just sitting around on the ground and other surfaces outside in the dark, not afraid of people.

Just wanted to let you know. Jidanni (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a section for fringe ideas?
I posted a link to a theory on how to predict earthquakes. I understand that you have removed it saying that it is not science and just a fringe idea. Surely Earthquake prediction is such an important and such a vague field where we humans are so poor at prediction and it is so important to predict earthquakes, that even fringe ideas may prove valuable someday in the future. For example I don't have the resources to investigate my idea that it is the weight of the oceans that cause the earthquakes, but surely some other scientific researcher(s) may someday put in the effort to investigate the idea and may find it to be sound and may come up with a formula to predict earthquakes based on this fringe idea. Surely this is important to this world? And surely scientists looking for ideas to investigate would come to Wikipedia rather than anywhere else to see what they can investigate? When vague ideas like falling flakes, fright of animals etc etc are listed as possible warning signs of earthquakes surely a theory (fringe or otherwise) to explain earthquakes is worthy of mention? Is earthquake prediction so unimportant to you or this world that you don't want to give a section for fringe ideas? Also if I publish my idea on philica.comwill that be worthy of listing here? 121.247.14.28 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should present "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.


 * Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.


 * If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: No original research and Verifiability.


 * The above is policy. As for Philica, whatever it may say there it is still basically self-published (yes, they say peer review, but I've looked at a couple of articles and they would never get into a peer reviewed journal). Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Fractoluminescence as a means of earthquake prediction. I added some blatant facts that unmask it as unadulterated idiocy. Please someone have the courage to nip it all off. :( Spamhog (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

prediction via radon concentration measurement?
the text just mentions it shortly in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction#Controversy_in_trying_to_predict_earthquakes , but no sources are given :

could somebody knowledable (seismologist/geologist) on the topic write something about the topic?

There have been attempts to measure the concentration of radon in soil and groundwater with a detector within the earth and relate a rising concentration to earthquake incidents. The concentration of radon seems to peak in the days before an earth quake.

http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/earthquakes.html chapter 4) http://tao.cgu.org.tw/pdf/v164p763.pdf http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019971.shtml http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2283.htm  http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/1156 home.iitk.ac.in/~ramesh/Virk.doc http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/6/505

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/08951/EGU05-J-08951.pdf  year 2005

(1) Chyir~L.L., Chou, C. Y., Yang, F. T., and Chen, C. H., 2001, Continuous radon measurements in faults and earthquake precursor pattern recognition. Western Pacific Sciences, v. 1, no. 2, 227-245;

(2) Chyi, L. L., Chou, C. Y., Yang, F. T., and Chen, C. H., 2002, Automated radon monitoring of seismicitv in a fault zone. Geofisica International, v. 41, no. 4, 507-511;

(3) U.S. Patent Nos. 5,408,862 and 5,625,138 to Elkins; and (4) U.S. Patent No. 5,438,324 to Chyi.

patent: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006083802 http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PCT-PAGES/2006/322006/06083802/06083802.pdf suprise: this source indicates that with diffrent geological conditions even the opposite can happen

decline of radon gas in solution in groundwater before earthquake:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118626939/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

interview mit seismologist Giampaolo Giuliani:(in italiano) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WieaAPrQEN4 --Stefanbcn (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dilatancy-diffusion theory
This appears to be a notable, if discredited theory. Potential sources: ,

Tidal Forces
This refers to how the Earths oceans High & Low tides might effect or offer future earthquake predictions, How would the additional force of the Earth & Moon "Barycenter" or the center of mass from which both objects rotate (located just beneath the Earth's crust)effect any earthquake predictions?Jalanp2 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update the Italy Prediction Story
A'Quila is bringing charges against the geniuses who REFUTED the now famous prediction of Mr. Giampaolo Giuliani who employs radon in his fairly accurate prediction method. They want to charge the several guys with manslaughter. Here is a link to that story dated June 6, 2010 on the Italian News Service ANSA English version: http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2010/06/03/visualizza_new.html_1818850160.html May I say it's pretty cool that Earthquake Prediction will be going on trial in the courts! Court TV??? Lesbrown99 (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MIGHT UPDATE IT AGAIN?

Now that the scientists have been charged as of late May 2011, and their court case is coming up as of October 2011, it is possible that you will want updates to appear on Wikipedia at this location (Should the case have its own Wiki Page?), although I do not know how closely to an "Ongoing Event" you wish Wikipedia to be. Here is the article about the case begining, but note that it was continued to October 1, and now continued until October 14 or 15 due to the Prosecution tendering additional new evidence in the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9857295 Thank-You!!! Lesbrown99 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sprucing up this article
Dear interested in earthquake predictions:

This page of Wikipedia needs to be improved. An encyclopedia must offer its readers facts. It is the collection of established human knowledge. Untested ideas cannot be included, but they can be voiced elsewhere.

I invite you to please help me to clean up this page. I am considering changing some paragraphs and adding new ones. If you will have questions or objections to my changes, please discuss them with me.

My qualifications (please forgive the length of this paragraph): I have been trained as seismologist at CALTECH by C. F. Richter. I have taught seismology as university professor for 20 years, held an endowed chair for 10 years, and been State Seismologist of Alaska. I have served for many years as editor of a scientific journal, published about 200 articles in peer reviewed journals, and edited several books on earthquake research. Most importantly, I have served as chairman of the IASPEI Sub-Commission on Earthquake Prediction for more than a decade and published the results of our evaluations of prediction theories.

In spite of 40 years of learning about earthquakes, I do not know all there is to know about predicting them and I am willing to learn.Maxwyss (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss


 * As first installment I have replaced the summary by a short and to the point version that does not contain discussion of topics other than prediction. The text has been reviewed by 2 leading experts other than myself.MaxWyss (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss


 * As a first major step, I have inserted the headings for topics which should be discussed in a professional level article about eq prediction. I am willing to fill in the needed text, by and by, with the help of experts in the respective fields, whom I will contact.


 * The fact that I have not touched any of the text that was in place does not mean that I endorse it. I delay changes of existing text to a second stage of improving the article.


 * QUESTION: Should an article that needs so much work remain on the main page?MaxWyss (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss
 * Placed a under construction template ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this, but we shouldn't have empty sections, templates or not. We can use a sub-page of this talk page however. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And we need verifiable sources -- as per WP:VERIFY, cited using the format used by the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk:Earthquake prediction/Under construction--Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dougweller: What do you mean by "using the format used by the article"?MaxWyss (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss


 * See WP:CITE. I mainly mean we shouldn't suddenly start using Harvard. Some of the footnotes are not up to standard. Eg "Geophys. J. Int" which should not have been abbreviated (that's from a reference to an article by you I think). Books need author, title, publisher, year, ISBN number, and page number. I see a link to Springer with nothing in the cite but the link, that shouldn't exist. New references should be complete, and we need to fix some existing ones. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dougweller, for responding. Instead of telling me what not to use (Harvard), please tell me to what I should set the output format in Endnote. I cannot figure it out from WP:CITE. I am willing to comply with any format that exists in Endnote or that I can make up in Endnote.MaxWyss (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss
 * Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite encyclopedia, Template:Citation
 * I'll take a look at the refs next week, no stress pls.
 * @Dougweller, "we shouldn't suddenly start using Harvard", what are we using instead? I actually don't see we using Harvard.
 * @MaxWyss, do u want to use Harvard (e.g. (Rittmann 1939))?
 * Examples: Plate tectonics, Timeline of the development of tectonophysics --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chris: I will copy the format of these articles you pointed to for citations.MaxWyss (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Animal behavior
The cited source does not condemn animal behavior theories as pseudoscientific, only as poorly documented or explained. There have been recent discussions of animals reacting to changes in the earth's magnetic field, which is a plausible explanation. This bulletin by the USGS says the jury is still out. Therefore prediction based on animal behavior should not be listed in the article as pseudoscientific. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't agree much. Mount Pelée's eruption 1902, released tremors between April 23th and May 8th: "These nightmarish conditions deteriorated further when the city and outlying villages were invaded by ground-dwelling insects and snakes driven from the slopes of Mt. Pelée by the ashfalls and tremors. Horses, pigs, and dogs screamed as red ants and foot-long centipedes crawled up their legs and bit them. Thousands of poisonous snakes joined the fray." --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get your point. The language is colorful and exaggerated because it's archaic. Animal behavior has been used more recently, including with the 1975 Chinese prediction, and we now know that some animals have highly developed abilities to sense the earth's magnetic field, which appears to be disrupted prior to earthquakes. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The tremors were so strong that everybody felt them. And some simple animals panicked. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then it's not a relevant example. There are documented examples of where animal behavior was used in actual predictions, such as in the 1975 quake in China. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1975, the Cultural Revolution was still taking place. There was no peer-reviewed paper (Kanamori, H. 2003). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
It seems weak. The criteria which are listed should be attributed to whatever agency formulated them. It also needs some more general introductory remarks, historical background, and so forth. I would suggest something along the lines of what is in this Scientific American article. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:MaxWyss is working on that, with these sections and subsections: Talk:Earthquake prediction/Under construction. is nice too. Japan's early warning system is not about prediction, it's about hazard mitigation, the alarm comes after the earthquake happened (a few seconds before the local intensity arrives). Are u talking about the lead or the "The problem of earthquake prediction" section? Give some time, it's under construction. The lead section (abstract) is written to end as last, and doesn't repeat the refs. in the text body. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Joe Bodacious, User:Chris.urs-o is right, the Scientific American article you mention is on "Early Warning", a completely different topic than earthquake prediction. It has its own page under earthquake warning system. There, the Sci. American article belongs. That section on earthquake early warning is a bit pale, in my oopinion, it could use some additions, including figure.  I might work on it if I find time.


 * Your request "agency formulated" cannot be fulfilled because agencies do not formulate anything, individuals do.


 * Your request to include something about the history seems a good idea to me. I'll add history, but now I am on the road with not much time. But I will not forget.MaxWyss (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss


 * Gathering some info on the history of research programs aiming at prediction, I found it is too much to add to the opening paragraph. I started a new section for this topic. I hope this is ok with you. The section is not finished. I am asking leading experts of Russia, China, Japan, and Europe to prepare short summaries.MaxWyss (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Acustica
(italian)

Scusate se parlo nella mia lingua madre, ma preferisco far ciò piuttosto che essere frainteso. Mi chiedevo: non esistono teorie secondo cui sia possibile prevedere terremoti poco prima del loro avvenimento usando dei... microfoni? Insomma, dopotutto ( secondo la fisica non la geologia) un urlo ed un terremoto non fanno parte della stessa branca della fisica, chiamata acustica? è vero o no che le faglie, o qualsiasi altra cosa provochi un terremoto, sfregandosi fra loro producano calore; onde (sismiche), e di conseguenza onde sonore? Se vogliamo accettare l'ipotesi che alcuni animali siano capaci di prevedere i terremoti, non ci sarebbe da chiedere come cio sia possibile? Prendiamo come esmpio i cani, cosa potrebbero aiutarli a prevedere i terremoti che l'uomo non ha? La vista daltonica? L'ottimo olfatto? Io credo invece che sia l'ottimo udito! Sono capaci on no di udire gli ultrasuoni, propio quella frequenza, che pur non mantenendo la propia forma entro grandi distanze (caso, questo, dei supersuoni?), - così dicono - è capace di "attraversare i muri"...

Grazie per il vostro tempo Guybrush Ulysses, 19:50 31/05/11 ops... 7:50 p.m 05/31/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.49.131 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fractoluminescence
Please take a look. I feel nauseated by this kind of drivel. I added some reality back into it, but it really should be cut out, never to be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamhog (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake precursor
It seems obvious that earthquake precursor should be linked somewhere in this article, but I don't understand the topic well enough to incorporate it. Can anyone else? Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction by Twitter users in August 2011 east coast quake
In the 2011 east coast earthquake, Twitter users near the epicenter twitted "earthquake" to fellow users on the east coast -- and the message arrived before the shaking happened. So this is an instance in which there was a verifiable (references) and accurate earthquake prediction. Apparently numerous users were alerted seconds before the seismic waves shook; what's key is that the Twitter person-to-person alerts were faster than TV or radio (which requires two steps -- alerting the station; then broadcasting the news). So I am wondering whether users who work on this page might want to add a line about this to your article here on earthquake prediction but I'll leave it up to you since I'm not a seismologist although I've experienced seismic activity in my mind while bowling a few years back. Possible text plus reference follows.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When a substantial earthquake hit the east coast of the United States in August 2011, Twitter users near the quake's epicenter twitted about the earthquake to fellow users in places like New York, who read the reports of the earthquake reaching other users before experiencing the shake of the waves themselves, that is, the speed of communication was faster than the earthquake's seismic waves. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the term "prediction" applies in this case. Perhaps "early detection" or "fast communication" is more appropriate. SV1XV (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mogi Doughnut Hypothesis
The section about the "accelerated seismic moment release hypothesis" states that the idea is complex and is discussed below in the article so it doesn't dominate that section...but I don't see it anywhere. Maybe a link within that statement to the section (or page) would be useful. 184.183.155.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Well here is what the link will lead to: In 1969 Mogi proposed a hypothesis for earthquake prediction, now known as the 'Mogi doughnut hypothesis', that major earthquakes tend to occur in an unusually seismically calm area surrounded by a ring of unusually high seismic activity.[6][7][8] The Mogi doughnut is one of several pattern hypotheses that have been proposed.[9] Is it possible to expand on this info at all? Or is it that because their are several hypotheses that it would take up to much space.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Precursors Section (Recommended Edit)
Under the "Precursory seismicity patterns" heading there is a somewhat confusing sentence regarding Kiyoo Mogi: "He showed maps that suggested that major earthquakes tend to occur in seismically unusually calm areas surrounded by a ring of unusually high seismic activity."

I'd recommend altering it to read:

"He showed maps that suggested major earthquakes tend to occur in areas with unusually rare seismic activity surrounded by a ring of unusually high seismic activity."

24.146.20.130 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fractoluminescence is pure nonsense. REMOVE?
The principle is 100% solid, I tried to instill a bit of reality in this section, and as a side effect as a detection technology it comes across just about as feasible as putting an internet-controlled graviton detector on Mars. I will delete this nonsensical section in a few months if no one objects. PLEASE READ IT AND COMMENT! Spamhog (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fractoluminescence section REMOVED
Deleted fractoluminescence section. It appears to be a real physical phenomenon, but as an EARTHQUAKE TECHNOLOGY it does not make any sense. I can't find ANY published instance of its being put forward as a (thoroughly unfeasible) prediction technology outside this article. Spamhog (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fractoluminescence redirects to Triboluminescence so they might be the same or similar things. Looking at the article on Triboluminescence it sounds like a reasonable explanation for Earthquake light and matches one of the theories there. I have seen earthquake light mentioned in several documentaries recently and there is plenty of evidence and testimony for the phenomena.

It is probably best to create a paragraph or two in the electromagnetic precursors section for earthquake light and to briefly mention triboluminesence as a possible cause for earthquake light. A good idea perhaps would be to create subsections in electromagnetic precursors - one for van method, one for earthquake light and one for TEC.

A possible scenario relating the whole lot would be something like: 1) pressure on the fault causes triboluminescence 2) the em field from triboluminesence affects the tec in the ionosphere 3) the ionosphere becomes charged / excited and we get an aurora or light in the upper atmosphere. But, you need to find some references saying these kinds of things before you could post something like that in the main article because otherwise it's too close to original work etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.41.72 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TEC
I have added some info to the intro. I have added a para to the bottom of electromagnetic precursors. I have included as many links as I can. I suggest that someone who has some time to incorporate this more appropriately make some adjustments to the page and the edits I have made.

The BBC program talks about how GPS was used to predict a volcanic erruption In_Orbit_How_Satellites_Rule_Our_World because of ground movement. After that it talks about how TEC has predicted several earthquakes by looking at historical data. This is brand new information for the general public and is popping up all over the place so a search for some scientific papers might help to explain things better.


 * Paper has now been added

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.41.72 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

LF Audio and LF EM prediction by humans and animals
There is a lot of mythical stuff on the front page wrt animals and humans that needs clearing up. So, here are some of the facts I know that can help clear up some of the mess. If references can be found then some of this can be added to the relevant place. Or, it might give someone some ideas and inspire them to write a properly researched section in the main article so that we can remove the myths and have something better. Aspirin was originally a herbal remedy but it became a medicine once we started to understand it. In time some of the myths and folklore around earthquake prediction may become recognised science and others will be dismissed as nonsense.

Sound and Humans: The human body feels sound below about 20hz and it doesn't hear it through the ears. The mechanism by which we "hear" the sound is due to the resonance of body organs or parts of the body. It is possible to make small parts of the body tingle. Other parts of the body become a resonance chamber, in particular the lungs. At a rave, subwoofers are often employed with special low frequency audio tracks at around 7hz to 9hz so that the music "comes alive". Low frequency sounds are not just heard, they are part of many cultures both ancient and modern.

Sound and Animals: Animals are very sensitive to low frequency sounds. LF audio carries further than higher frequencies. Loud bangs, explosions, earthquakes, thunder, fireworks, guns, balloons, stuff falling down etc can all send an animal running for cover.

Sound and Prediction: The moment a quake starts, low frequency sound is generated by the movements of the rocks. The cowering behaviour of dogs to low frequency sounds could serve as a warning to the rest of the pack (or family) to get ready for some kind of disaster. Low frequency sounds are associated with danger so its a response you would expect. Humans can know when a bus or a lorry is coming because they hear bits of the building vibrate or they can feel it in their body, or they can feel and/or hear the distant rumble. As the heavy vehicle gets closer the higher frequency sounds can be heard. It is possible therefore for humans to know that an earthquake is imminent. The chinese had an invasion alarm that was used to check for tunneling invaders and it was demonstrated on mythbusters. If it was sensitive enough to detect mining it is possible that it was able to detect imminent earthquakes. If a quake has a foreshock which generates LF audio then it is possible in theory to predict an earthquake. But, a quake don't always have a foreshock.

EM and the human body: The human body can detect electromagnetic waves at a variety of frequencies. 1) We have eyes that see a narrow range called the visual spectrum. 2)We feel energy as warmth, in particular from the infra-red range from sources like a fire or the sun. 3) We make use of the sunlight to create vitamin D but it's not a sense as far as we know. 4) There are some people who are sensitive to the electromagnetic waves produced by overhead power cables 5) some people are sensitive to radio communications in the microwave range.  However research demonstrates that sensitivity to magnetic fields is very rare or non existent.  Likewise, wrt low frequency em, any sensitivity is rare and the mechanism is unknown.

EM and animal physiology: Many animals have a magnetic sensitivity and use it for migration, in particular, birds. Some animals are sensitive to electrical fields, a good example would be sharks. Some animals see in frequencies that humans can't: ultra-violet and infra-red are common. Communication with animals is difficult so many experiments have to be created and run across many species to determine what they can and cannot "see".

EM Prediction: There is a lot of evidence for EM waves both before and during an earthquake and some animals have senses which could in theory detect them. So, it may be possible for some animals to detect the EM waves that are produced prior to an earthquake and therefore to predict an earthquake. Whilst there are many relationships, coincidences and possibilities, nothing has been rigorously tested or proved. The EM produced prior to an earthquake is poorly understood at present and requires a great deal more research. Whilst there have been some predictions they have not been reliable enough to be useful. Until the EM fields are well mapped in time and space around an earthquake it will be difficult to know if it is possible for some humans or animals to predict earthquakes. The large number of satellites which have been launched demonstrate the huge scientific interest in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottonsocks (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)