By Simon Worrall
PUBLISHED AUGUST 26, 2017
Half a million earthquakes occur worldwide each year,
according to an estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Most are
too small to rattle your teacup. But some, like the 2011 quake off the
coast of Japan or last year’s disaster in Italy, can level high-rise
buildings, knock out power, water and communications, and leave a
lifelong legacy of trauma for those unlucky enough to be caught in them.
In
the U.S., the focus is on California’s San Andreas fault, which
geologists suggest has a nearly one-in-five chance of causing a major
earthquake in the next three decades. But it’s not just the faults we
know about that should concern us, says Kathryn Miles, author of
Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake. As she
explained when National Geographic caught up with her at her home in
Portland, Maine, there’s a much larger number of faults we don’t know
about—and fracking is only adding to the risks.
When it comes to earthquakes, there is really only one question everyone wants to know: When will the big one hit California?
That’s
the question seismologists wish they could answer, too! One of the most
shocking and surprising things for me is just how little is actually
known about this natural phenomenon. The geophysicists, seismologists,
and emergency managers that I spoke with are the first to say, “We just
don’t know!”
What
we can say is that it is relatively certain that a major earthquake
will happen in California in our lifetime. We don’t know where or when.
An earthquake happening east of San Diego out in the desert is going to
have hugely different effects than that same earthquake happening in,
say, Los Angeles. They’re both possible, both likely, but we just don’t
know.
One
of the things that’s important to understand about San Andreas is that
it’s a fault zone. As laypeople we tend to think about it as this single
crack that runs through California and if it cracks enough it’s going
to dump the state into the ocean. But that’s not what’s happening here.
San Andreas is a huge fault zone, which goes through very different
types of geological features. As a result, very different types of
earthquakes can happen in different places.
There
are other places around the country that are also well overdue for an
earthquake. New York City has historically had a moderate earthquake
approximately every 100 years. If that is to be trusted, any moment now there will be another one, which will be devastating for that city.
As
Charles Richter, inventor of the Richter Scale, famously said, “Only
fools, liars and charlatans predict earthquakes.” Why are earthquakes so
hard to predict? After all, we have sent rockets into space and plumbed
the depths of the ocean.
You’re
right: We know far more about distant galaxies than we do about the
inner workings of our planet. The problem is that seismologists can’t
study an earthquake because they don’t know when or where it’s going to
happen. It could happen six miles underground or six miles under the
ocean, in which case they can’t even witness it. They can go back and do
forensic, post-mortem work. But we still don’t know where most faults
lie. We only know where a fault is after an earthquake has occurred. If
you look at the last 100 years of major earthquakes in the U.S., they’ve
all happened on faults we didn’t even know existed.
Earthquakes 101
Earthquakes
are unpredictable and can strike with enough force to bring buildings
down. Find out what causes earthquakes, why they’re so deadly, and
what’s being done to help buildings sustain their hits.
Fracking
is a relatively new industry. Many people believe that it can cause
what are known as induced earthquakes. What’s the scientific consensus?
The
scientific consensus is that a practice known as wastewater injection
undeniably causes earthquakes when the geological features are
conducive. In the fracking process, water and lubricants are injected
into the earth to split open the rock, so oil and natural gas can be
retrieved. As this happens, wastewater is also retrieved and brought
back to the surface.
You Might Also Like
Different
states deal with this in different ways. Some states, like
Pennsylvania, favor letting the wastewater settle in aboveground pools,
which can cause run-off contamination of drinking supplies. Other
states, like Oklahoma, have chosen to re-inject the water into the
ground. And what we’re seeing in Oklahoma is that this injection is
enough to shift the pressure inside the earth’s core, so that daily
earthquakes are happening in communities like Stillwater. As our
technology improves, and both our ability and need to extract more
resources from the earth increases, our risk of causing earthquakes will
also rise exponentially.
After
Fukushima, the idea of storing nuclear waste underground cannot be
guaranteed to be safe. Yet President Trump has recently green-lighted
new funds for the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Is that wise?
The
issue with Fukushima was not about underground nuclear storage but it
is relevant. The Tohoku earthquake, off the coast of Japan, was a
massive, 9.0 earthquake—so big that it shifted the axis of the earth and
moved the entire island of Japan some eight centimeters! It also
created a series of tsunamis, which swamped the Fukushima nuclear power
plant to a degree the designers did not believe was possible.
Here
in the U.S., we have nuclear plants that are also potentially
vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis, above all on the East Coast,
like Pilgrim Nuclear, south of Boston, or Indian Point, north of New
York City. Both of these have been deemed by the USGS to have an
unacceptable level of seismic risk. [Both are scheduled to close in the
next few years.]
Yucca
Mountain is meant to address our need to store the huge amounts of
nuclear waste that have been accumulating for more than 40 years.
Problem number one is getting it out of these plants. We are going to
have to somehow truck or train these spent fuel rods from, say, Boston,
to a place like Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. On the way it will have to go
through multiple earthquake zones, including New Madrid, which is
widely considered to be one of the country’s most dangerous earthquake
zones.
Yucca
Mountain itself has had seismic activity. Ultimately, there’s no great
place to put nuclear waste—and there’s no guarantee that where we do put
it is going to be safe.
The psychological and emotional effects of an earthquake are especially harrowing. Why is that?
This
is a fascinating and newly emerging subfield within psychology, which
looks at the effects of natural disasters on both our individual and
collective psyches. Whenever you experience significant trauma, you’re
going to see a huge increase in PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicide, and
even violent behaviors.
What
seems to make earthquakes particularly pernicious is the surprise
factor. A tornado will usually give people a few minutes, if not longer,
to prepare; same thing with hurricanes. But that doesn’t happen with an
earthquake. There is nothing but profound surprise. And the idea that
the bedrock we walk and sleep upon can somehow become liquid and mobile
seems to be really difficult for us to get our heads around.
Psychologists
think that there are two things happening. One is a PTSD-type loop
where our brain replays the trauma again and again, manifesting itself
in dreams or panic attacks during the day. But there also appears to be a
physiological effect as well as a psychological one. If your readers
have ever been at sea for some time and then get off the ship and try to
walk on dry land, they know they will look like drunkards. [Laughs] The
reason for this is that the inner ear has habituated itself to the
motion of the ship. We think the inner ear does something similar in the
case of earthquakes, in an attempt to make sense of this strange,
jarring movement.
After
the Abruzzo quake in Italy, seven seismologists were actually tried and
sentenced to six years in jail for failing to predict the disaster.
Wouldn’t a similar threat help improve the prediction skills of American
seismologists?
[Laughs]
The scientific community was uniform in denouncing that action by the
Italian government because, right now, earthquakes are impossible to
predict. But the question of culpability is an important one. To what
degree do we want to hold anyone responsible? Do we want to hold the
local meteorologist responsible if he gets the weather forecast wrong?
[Laughs]
What
scientists say—and I don’t think this is a dodge on their parts—is,
“Predicting earthquakes is the Holy Grail; it’s not going to happen in
our lifetime. It may never happen.” What we can do is work on early
warning systems, where we can at least give people 30 or 90 seconds to
make a few quick decisive moves that could well save your life. We have
failed to do that. But Mexico has had one in place for years!
There is some evidence that animals can predict earthquakes. Is there any truth to these theories?
All
we know right now is anecdotal information because this is so hard to
test for. We don’t know where the next earthquake is going to be so we
can’t necessarily set up cameras and observe the animals there. So we
have to rely on these anecdotal reports, say, of reptiles coming out of
the ground prior to a quake. The one thing that was recorded here in the
U.S. recently was that in the seconds before an earthquake in Oklahoma
huge flocks of birds took flight. Was that coincidence? Related? We
can’t draw that correlation yet.
One
of the fascinating new approaches to prediction is the MyQuake app.
Tell us how it works—and why it could be an especially good solution for
Third World countries.
The
USGS desperately wants to have it funded. The reluctance appears to be
from Congress. A consortium of universities, in conjunction with the
USGS, has been working on some fascinating tools. One is a dense network
of seismographs that feed into a mainframe computer, which can take all
the information and within nanoseconds understand that an earthquake is
starting.
MyQuake
is an app where you can get up to date information on what’s happening
around the world. What’s fascinating is that our phones can also serve
as seismographs. The same technology that knows which way your phone is
facing, and whether it should show us an image in portrait or landscape,
registers other kinds of movement. Scientists at UC Berkeley are
looking to see if they can crowd source that information so that in
places where we don’t have a lot of seismographs or measuring
instruments, like New York City or Chicago or developing countries like
Nepal, we can use smart phones both to record quakes and to send out
early warning notices to people.
You traveled all over the U.S. for your research. Did you return home feeling safer?
I
do not feel safer in the sense that I had no idea just how much risk
regions of this country face on a daily basis when it comes to seismic
hazards. We tend to think of this as a West Coast problem but it’s not!
It’s a New York, Memphis, Seattle, or Phoenix problem. Nearly every
major urban center in this country is at risk of a measurable
earthquake.
What
I do feel safer about is knowing what I can do as an individual. I hope
that is a major take-home message for people who read the book. There
are so many things we should be doing as individuals, family members, or
communities to minimize this risk: simple things from having a go-bag
and an emergency plan amongst the family to larger things like building
codes.
We
know that a major earthquake is going to happen. It’s probably going to
knock out our communications lines. Phones aren’t going to work, Wi-Fi
is going to go down, first responders are not going to be able to get to
people for quite some time. So it is beholden on all of us to make sure
we can survive until help can get to us.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.

No comments:
Post a Comment