INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Almost every time, after a large earthquake occurs near a residential area, questions are raised in the media as to "why the event was not
most natural hazard experts argue that forecasting is at best the pinnacle of seismology and at worst has adverse effects on our ability to
manage disasters.First, we need to clarify what is meant by "Earthquake prediction"
What we mean is that before an earthquake occurs, a correct and relatively accurate estimate of magnitude, location, and time of its
include all three.Of course, we must provide a prediction that is logical and within the framework of rational reasoning, and in accordance
between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM on a specific day is very good! And of course, predicting that an event with a magnitude of 2.0 to 7.6 will
occur in the entire country of Iran or a region of it or a large area inside and outside the country, for example, in the entire month of
August, is definitely not useful (and of course, it will certainly turn out to be wrong.)Pay attention to this Prediction clamming (recently
performed and published in Iran): "Given that there was a strong earthquake with a magnitude of 4.2 on 24 July 2022 in Bandar Khamir (South
Zagros, Hormozgan) area, based on the proposed model, the probability of the next earthquake occurring in the period of 25 July to 25 August
has been identified and by examining the seismographic data from 26 June 2018 to till 24 July 2022, 755 severe earthquakes have been
a strong earthquake and the next strong earthquake is a maximum of 29 days, which means that whenever we have witnessed a strong earthquake,
the next earthquake occurs at most 29 days or less have given."Ready such a prediction report, we may conclude that this type of forecast
contains several fundamental errors, and shows that the forecaster is not even familiar with the basics of the Science of Seismology: first,
he calls an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.2 to be "strong" (a strong earthquake has a magnitude equal to or greater than 6), and then
clearly there is no reason why the desired time window was 4 years? And the basis of the "suggested model" is not clear and...So, what are
the drawbacks of announcing the results of prediction and relying on it? Let's leave aside the basic scientific and technical problems for
The first problem of the work itself is "announcing" predictions, especially long-term and large-scale predictions.For example, the Loma
Prieta earthquake in 1989 (Northern California) caused significant damage in the San Francisco Bay area of California
Twelve hours after the event, the US Geological Survey (USGS) reportedly claimed to have "predicted" the earthquake in a report the previous
Various other claims have been made about the prediction.18 reports in 1990 claimed, "scientific predictions of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake were presented 'in retrospect'" (in this case the correct time and location predictions were made with such a wide window (e.g
covering a large part of California for five years) which had lost its predictive value
Predictions were also presented with a probability of only 30% in ten or twenty-year windows.One of the discussed predictions used the M8
algorithm, which was originally proposed by the great scientist in this field, Vladimir Keilis-Borok, and his colleagues
Prominent Soviet scientist Kilis Borok - who immigrated to the USA after the collapse of the Soviet Union - received his doctorate in
Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics in Moscow
extended the time window to July 1, 1992, by including more of California and half of Nevada, and reduced the location (forecast target) to
to the same model, the five-year time window for one expired in July 1989, and thus missed the Loma Prieta event (could not predict)
The second revision extended to 1990 and included Loma Prieta Earthquake.When discussing the success or failure of the Loma Prieta 1989
earthquake prediction, some scientists argue that the earthquake did not occur on the San Andreas fault (the target of most predictions) and
instead involved strike-slip motion (vertical) and of course the horizontal slip component, and therefore not predicted.Other scientists
argued that the Loma Prieta earthquake occurred in the San Andreas fault "zone" and released much of the accumulated strain from the 1906
Susan Hough, a well-known seismologist of the United States Geological Survey, believes that in this way the Loma Prieta earthquake was not
actually predicted, but some predictions were made that were only partially successful.Let's imagine a scenario where a long-term prediction
is possible, and a situation where an accurate prediction is made today that a magnitude 7.4 earthquake will strike a hypothetical city
If we were 100% confident in our prediction, the city could be evacuated in advance, dangerous buildings demolished and emergency services
businesses will be closed, and the economy will suffer, so with such a forecast, the economic and social cost to the assumed city will be
very high, and may actually be more than the cost of the earthquake itself
This is made worse when we consider that the forecast cannot be 100% reliable - in fact, it is far from that - meaning that it could be a
So if the economic and social effects of a very long-term forecast are problematic, what about short-term forecasts? It can be predicted
that the same earthquake will occur in the given city in 24 hours
This avoids long-term economic and social effects but allows for a high level of preparedness
Again, buildings can be evacuated, hospitals prepared, schools closed, etc.This is attractive, but the practical problem again lies in the
uncertainty in the prediction
Suppose this prediction is completely correct in time and magnitude but mispredicts the location by 200 km
If the population is moved from the forecast area to the actual epicenter, this can have catastrophic consequences
This work can make the destruction of the earthquake much more serious than when no prediction was made!Meanwhile, suppose that the location
and magnitude of the earthquake are exactly right, but three days later than predicted! There is a high probability that the population will
begin to return to the affected area and become more vulnerable than previously anticipated.In fact, the mechanism of earthquakes makes them
more difficult to predict
Some people think that a tectonic earthquake is like a bomb that explodes at a point underground, and energy waves travel away from that
of a fault, an underground surface that is usually so deep that it is not accessible - except by seismology - and waves of energy are
along the fault plane over a period of time, usually seconds to minutes
In this sense, it has nothing in common with the model understood by non-experts (in the form of an underground bomb).Note that
non-specialists include educated people who have attained high scientific degrees in different specialized fields and have general
scientific knowledge, but they do not understand the phenomenon of earthquakes and geological processes of stress concentration in the crust
which of course create bigger problems! Many people do not have the possibility to distinguish and separate the specialized areas, and
judging this type of activity leads to a dignified confrontation with the provider of this type of prediction and faces a challenge.In the
scientific studies of earthquake prediction, in addition to the studies of seismic waves, other fields also play a role in the prediction of
the occurrence of historical earthquakes
These findings can be used to infer the future behavior of faults and earthquake potentials
By studying the landforms and geological units with known age that the faults have changed, it is possible to determine the displacement of
the two sides of a fault relative to each other.Under favorable conditions, even fault displacements during historical earthquakes can be
detected and their size and approximate age can be determined
Significant fault displacement is generally accepted as evidence for large earthquakes, and thus the seismogenic history of a fault can be
use became common in the 1970s
For example, in 1984, American scientist Kerry Sieh published pieces of evidence of 12 earthquakes that occurred between 260 and 1857 AD
about 145 years for major earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault in southern California
Other studies, such as geological measurements, magnetic and electrical measurements, and hydrological and chemical analyses, also greatly
contribute to our knowledge of the physical and chemical states of rocks and provide clues as to whether rocks are on the verge of
failure.In addition, rock deformation experiments and measurements of the physical properties of rocks provide data essential to our
understanding of the earthquake process
The history of seismological studies, especially after 1960, shows that major advances occurred shortly after the accumulation of quality
digital seismographic network in the early 1990s, the model of the Earth's internal structure was rapidly refined
In the 1930s, the determination of seismic velocity, density, and other physical parameters for a spherical Earth model was completed by
in the early 1960s (with seismographs) enabled the study of global seismicity and focal mechanisms on a scale not previously possible
with the availability of digital seismic data at the local and global scale, major advances in earthquake seismology are expected
In addition, advances in computers with increasing computing power but the decreasing cost are important for seismologists to process and
analyze data in order to gain insight from the ever-increasing volume of collected seismic data
were developed with more than 1000 digital accelerometers in Taiwan, Japan, and Iran
An extensive dataset of severe ground motion in the Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquakes of September 20, 1999, and December 26, 2003, Bam (Iran)
clearly showed that these near field data not only provide the information needed for earthquake engineering but also help to better
to predict earthquakes had been unsuccessful
of evidence, it is possible to identify the areas where destructive earthquakes occur
We may even have an approximate estimate of their magnitude and the number of times they occur, but we do not have the ability to accurately
and the Soviet Union, and progress has so far been slow
The fact is that any kind of "announcement and notification" of the results before the earthquake, caused by pseudo-scientific or even
scientific works, for any purpose or motive, can be predicted to lead to anxiety and pressure on the audience and both forecasting teams and
