Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
intensity of Rossi-Forel 8-9 and was palpable over a region of about four
hundred miles at its widest. there was no good reason for it not to have
been reported by the SSA's observers.
76
By early 1913, Branner was complaining publicly about the failure of
his observing network. “the collection of information on the west coast of
north America in regard to earthquakes is not as simple and as easy as it
looks at first glance.” A first problem, he explained, was that weak shocks
were so frequent that “most people are accustomed to them. . . . It is a com-
mon experience to hear a remark like this in the middle of a conversation:
'By the way, did you feel that earthquake last night?' and after a yes or no,
the conversation goes on without further interruption.” Most earthquakes
did not seem to most people to be “worthwhile” to report. But there was
also a more insidious problem at work: the “deliberate suppression of news
about earthquakes.”
77
Branner was not the first seismologist since 1906 to
have raised the charge of seismic denial, and he would hardly be the last.
Branner wanted California's residents and scientists alike to acknowl-
edge what they did and did not know about earthquakes. He stressed that
“no one needs apologize for any fact he sends in. to our requests for in-
formation about earthquakes we are frequently told apologetically that 'I
don't know anything about earthquakes.' there is but one reply to be made
to such remarks, and that is that 'we know precious little about them our-
selves; we are just now trying to find out, and we want your help.'”
78
One
respondent freely admitted his ignorance: “Would you kindly notify me,
and I presume the information would be of interest to the other lay mem-
bers of the Society, just how to recognize the disturbance occasioned by an
earthquake. that is, how to differentiate it from similar disturbances. not
infrequently we have a little jar which we wonder about, as to whether it
is an earthquake or the result of some blasting or explosion.”
79
In another
case, an engineer wrote to Branner asking for information on earthquakes in
two states where his company planned to construct dams. Branner replied
that he was sorry he had no information. He used this exchange in a 1913
article for the
BSSA
to “urge upon these very engineers the great importance
and necessity of their own cooperation. . . . 'Help us and we shall gladly do
all we can to help you. If you feel an earthquake, report the time, place, and
intensity to the Seismological Society of America.'” It was crucial to “keep
up our observations right straight along, year in and year out, whether the
earthquakes are big or little.”
80
nonetheless, earthquakes continued to strike
without being reported. the entire program was still experimental in 1914.
It was still a matter of “try[ing] out the plan of locating the epicenters of our
California earthquakes from personal observations.”
81
