Chasing a chimera doesn't help

Chasing a chimera doesn't help
A.K.R. Hemmady

Our seismologists have managed to get a Cabinet panel to approve a project, with international collaboration if necessary, to predict earthquakes. As the Japanese have been foremost in earthquake prediction research, let us examine their experience.

From 1962 onwards, Japanese scientists were pressing the government to allocate funds for prediction-related research. The suggestion was finally accepted in 1965, following the havoc caused by the Nigata earthquake of 1964. Around US$ 36 million were allocated till 1976, and for 1976 alone the amount was $8 million. About 70 seismograph stations, 20 crustal deformation observatories and 10 magnetometer stations were established. Excellent levelling surveys were repeated once in every five years to monitor regional sinking or upheaval of the ground. About 20,000 km distance were covered in each round.

In 1978, a law was passed to provide for adequate warning to be given in the event of a major earthquake so that emergency services could be put on full alert. An earthquake prediction council was formed to issue such warnings. The nearest it got to do this job was in 1983, when a foreshock was held as a pointer to a subsequent main event of magnitude of 7.7 within the sea of Japan. The only snag was that the two events occurred 12 days apart. The Japan Research Institute concluded that had the emergency measures been introduced for 12 days running -- trains stopped, banks, post-offices, and departmental stores closed, the costs would have amounted to more than 700 billion yen a day -- ie, more than the cost of the damage!

In the early 90s, Japan's extensive network failed to anticipate about four major earthquakes but this was played down because the events had occurred in the sparsely populated areas of Hokkaido and and Honshu. But, in 1995, forecasters miserably failed to warn people about the Kobe earthquake which killed 6,400 people, and that too in an area which was supposed to be seismically inactive. This led Dr Kiyoo Mogi to quit his post as the government's top earthquake adviser because of the futility of his task.

If that was the outcome after having spent about Yen 160 billion over 30 years on prediction research, the Geodesy Council of Japan's ministry of education felt with some justification that earthquake prediction research should be abandoned and the resources diverted to designing quake-resistant buildings and planning better disaster management strategies.

An excellent report prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, prepared in 1975, `Earthquake Prediction and Public Policy' states: ``A lack of consensus on the validity and value of earthquake prediction may spawn opposing interest groups and countermovements. The merits and value of such predictions will be debated in scientific circles and by various interest groups, utilizing the mass media of communication. The opposition of some scientists and engineers to the development of an operational earthquake-prediction system is already beginning to surface. The opposition is based on a variety of doubts and fears: scientific skepticism about the current theoretical underpinnings for earthquake -- prediction; fears that increased emphasis on predictions will detract from or undermine continuing efforts to achieve improved hazard reduction in earthquake-prone areas; fears that inaccurate predictions will undermine scientific credibility; and fears that predictions may produce `mass panic' amongaffected populace. A popular theme currently being espoused among some scientists and science popularisers is that `prediction might be more devastating than the event itself.' What will happen if equally qualified experts differ forcefully? Will the government go ahead and predict the earthquake?''

I feel that instead of wasting money on research which has so far been proved futile, it is better to invest scant government resources on finding safer earthquake-resistant designs, studying the feasibility of earthquake insurance and preparing more efficient disaster management plans.

The writer is deputy director general (retd), Geological Survey of India