Stop predicting earthquakes on TV, expert pleads with his colleagues
The places to discuss seismic phenomena are scientific conferences, not television studios, says Giorgos Stavrakakis, director of Athens Observatory’s Geodynamic Institute. In this interview with Kathimerini, Stavrakakis called on his colleagues to refrain from engaging in televised debates and declared himself to be against making statements regarding the possibility of predicting earthquakes. It is far preferable for every household to discuss ways to deal with a phenomenon that is without a doubt part of our lives, he claims. You are in the habit of saying that in Greece we should always be prepared for a major earthquake. How prepared are people, or the State for that matter? Don’t expect people to easily accept the idea that a major earthquake could occur. But it is in people’s interest to realize that they live in a country with a high degree of seismic activity. If we don’t realize that we have to make our buildings safer, whatever else we say is meaningless. If we take that as a given, we then have to do something that is usual in other countries but rare in Greece; have a discussion within the family about what to do in an earthquake. In Japan, for instance, people don’t jump off their balconies in an earthquake. The more we know, the more we can minimize the effects of a major quake. As for the State, considerable efforts have been made in recent years, but they should not stop. Nevertheless, the general feeling is that the State responded quite well in the (September 1999) Athens quake. Would the same thing happen, though, in another town in Greece? I believe that continuous efforts are being made to improve and adapt emergency plans, according to the specific conditions in each area. But most towns don’t have specific emergency plans. That is a difficult question. There should be emergency exercises. But we live in a country of extremes. The public does not understand that it is just an exercise and wonder if an earthquake is about to happen. Would this happen if exercises were held regularly, as in Japan? No, but still much is being done and things have improved considerably. In the European Union there is an effort under way to to incorporate all the tools that might be of use. Fortunately, disaster management has been taken over by the experts and I believe that gradually this will become obvious. How safe are the buildings in Greece? What about all the illegal construction? Over the past 10-15 years a great effort has been made to improve all regulations and procedures for confronting a natural disaster. There is no cure for the illegally constructed buildings. People should be aware of the consequences other than paying a fine or not having electricity connected. I am amazed that someone can build a house illegally and then let their family live in it without thinking what might happen. Three years after the Athens quake, do you think that the lessons have been learned? First of all, this doesn’t happen automatically. Dozens of people have researched the quake, dozens of instrument readings have been compared and hundreds of pages have been written on the subject. Even today, scientists are still presenting new findings about the San Fernando earthquake in the US, a century after it happened. But woe betide us if we don’t heed the lessons of the 1999 quake. When an earthquake happens less than 20-30 kilometers from an urban conglomeration, damage is unfortunately widespread. Therefore what is needed is a broad knowledge of seismic areas and, as far as possible, a focus on building safety. Secondly, we say that many different factors played a role, for example geological conditions. These have all been presented at conferences. I think the State should take this accumulated knowledge into serious consideration. We always learn something. For example, no one could have imagined there would be a strong quake in Kozani. How seismically active is Greece in comparison to other countries? Unfortunately, Greece is high on the list. Nearly 50 percent of all seismic activity in Europe occurs here. On a world scale we are sixth or seventh, but that doesn’t mean much. There is a lot of seismic activity in Greece, but not much seismic danger. For example, if a 6.5 Richter earthquake strikes in a country in Latin America or Turkey, it is a major catastrophe. There are two factors that ameliorate the danger in Greece. After the 1953 quakes, the State introduced earthquake protection regulations that gradually helped engineers to build better buildings. Secondly, the epicenters of the major earthquakes are mostly in the seabed, and that is what saves us. Even the Skyros quake last year, where the epicenter was 20-30 kilometers southwest of the island, there were only secondary effects, such as landslides, and minor damage considering the size of the quake. That is something we should emphasize, because when we keep referring to high seismic activity, we upset people. How many earthquakes occur every year in Greece? We have to be careful about quoting figures. For example, about 4,000-5,000 aftershocks were recorded in the period following the Athens quake. Figures like these could terrify people, but for us they are normal. Every year there might be 1,500-2,000 quakes. But not a day goes by when a minor quake is not recorded somewhere in Greece. We have to get used to it. What about the rest of the world? Has there been an increase in the general level of seismic activity on the planet? Every day there are about 8,000 quakes of 1-2 Richter, and 1,000 more of 2-3 Richter. Every year there are about 49,000 quakes on the order of 3-3.9 Richter, 6,200 of 4-4.9 Richter, 800 of 5-5.9 Richter, 120 of 6-6.9 Richter and only abut 18 of 7-7.9 Richter. Quakes stronger than 8 Richter occur at least once a year. If this movement inside the earth ever stops, it will be the end of life on the planet. The message is that we are forced to live with earthquakes and we will keep saying it. The release of seismic energy is not regular. There are periods of calm and periods of «upheaval.» That does not mean, however, that we should rest easy. Are the relevant authorities properly coordinated? Why is there often a difference of opinion among seismologists? It would be serious if there was no coordination. However I don’t agree that seismologists are in conflict; they have simply made different evaluations. This is positive for science and it happens everywhere. In the service of one’s science, one comes across many uncertainties and it is natural to hear another opinion. When this second opinion appears on the evening news, however, the journalist presents it as a dispute. The only thing they should put on TV is information. Everything else should be debated at scientific conferences. Many people accuse seismologists of trying to promote themselves as part of a battle for funds. What do you say to that? I’m very sad when I hear that. Do you know how tough the world of research is? Any research project submitted is subjected to strict criteria. Funds aren’t that easily available. I don’t know where these ideas come from, but they are an insult to our science. To some extent, aren’t the seismologists themselves to blame? No one has ever obtained a project by shouting. They are subjected to a very strict evaluation process. And don’t imagine that administering such a program is easy. Last year the state earthquake protection organization (OASP) announced the establishment of a National Seismograph Network. What stage is this at? I have always maintained – and have paid a personal price for these views – that a single organization should assume the task, as happens around the world…. But I don’t believe that it is a bad thing if all agencies participate, and that is where we are heading today. Have you ever faced a conflict of interests as a seismologist and as director of the Geodynamic Institute? A director always has to complain. Unfortunately, that has often happened in the past and I hope it will stop. The State should not only be thinking about earthquakes after they have happened. The two schools of seismology Which of the two schools of seismology do you belong to? The one that focuses more on prognosis or the school that emphasizes protection measures? Prediction is the goal of seismological research, there is no doubt about that. But the two schools operate side by side. Even if we ever reach the stage of being able to predict earthquakes, protection measures will be what counts. How can prediction help when I do nothing to protect myself? Seismological research, however, is not simply prognosis, that would belittle the science. At what stage is research into prognosis in general? How useful are the results? Can they be announced? During the 1970s and 1980s, the international scientific community focused on the continual observation of certain physical parameters aimed at short-term prediction. That is why billions of dollars have been invested and innumerable conferences held. But I would say that here we are not much further than square one. Then interest was shown in medium-term prediction, which is more a question of evaluation and not prediction in the real sense, and there has been a great deal of progress in this sector. One can make an assessment for the next three to five years over a broad area, with a small leeway regarding magnitude. But it is still only an evaluation, that is why I am categorically opposed to such announcements. When scientists and the State know there could be a strong quake in the next five years in a particular seismic zone, they can both prepare for it and take protective measures. Announcing it achieves nothing but panic.
