By Rong-Gong Lin II
Earthquake early warnings can come as false alarms — but it’s better to be safer than sorry, researchers concluded in a new study.
Scientists at the US Geological Survey, the University of Southern California and the California Institute of Technology worked on a research project to determine the limits of the accuracy of seismic warnings. They conducted a statistical simulation to determine what strategy would be the best to save lives and protect the economy — is it better to get more warnings but also more false alarms? Or is it better not to receive an alert unless it’s certain there will be shaking, even though that might cause you to miss a warning?
People might have their own answers. But the scientists decided to take a different tack to address the dilemma: math.
In research detailed in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists simulated tens of millions of hypothetical earthquakes in California. They imagined how forecasts made by an earthquake early warning system would compare with how shaking might be felt.
First, they found no way to have an earthquake early warning system that is 100 percent accurate. It’s scientifically impossible. Earthquakes that produce the same amount of overall energy — those that have the same magnitude — can produce much different shaking.
Shaking may feel different depending on whether the energy is aimed toward or away from you. One earthquake could produce intense shaking for a short time; another of the same magnitude could shake slower, resulting in a less severe roll. And the earth’s movement could feel less intense on solid bedrock but worse on soft soil.
Second, the scientists calculated that any particular California location had the chance of feeling an earthquake — a minimum of light shaking — just twice in a decade.
Their key finding: An early warning system that gives you an excellent chance of being alerted to those twice-in-a-decade earthquakes will likely deliver four warnings that turn out to be false in that same time.
“It’s a small price to pay if you’re talking about something where there’s a lot of benefit to be had,” said research geophysicist Sarah Minson. For example, a potentially deadly derailment could be avoided by slowing a train before the predicted shaking will arrive, said Minson, lead author of the study.
On the other hand, if your priority is that any warnings you receive are almost certain to precede shaking, you’re far more likely to get no warning at all.
For some, the choice will be obvious.
There are costs to inaction before a big earthquake: You don’t drop, cover and hold on and an unstrapped bookcase tips over and flattens you. A dentist is unable to remove the drill from a patient’s mouth before to the shaking. A butcher doesn’t have the chance to move away from the deli slicer. Power company workers aren’t warned in time to hang on to a utility pole.
In those cases, it’s an easy call to choose an early warning even if it means no shaking comes.
When shaking is relatively light, seconds of warning still may provide a sense of comfort for some.
LEAVE A COMMENT Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*
‘Give and Go’
Is your health in the hands of technology
Real influence is to speak up for those who have no influence
Our Planet watch party zeroes in on climate crisis
This is climate emergency
Special screening of Our Planet to raise awareness about climate change
Young Sri Lankan expat campaigns for climate change in Qatar
Desert monitor: Varanus griseus