Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
the University along the line suggested. If the Carnegie Institution of Wash-
ington were well known to the rural press and had such a standing that its
request would be heeded, I would take this action myself.” In April Wood
again urged Byerly to “reconsider the matter.”
174
the initiative to enlist the
help of local papers in seismological research seems to have died there.
The Language of Violence
Wood's growing experience with felt reports made him increasingly aware
of the shortcomings of existing scales of seismic intensity. the Rossi-Forel
scale was “ambiguous and badly sub-divided,” while the Sieberg was “rather
wordy.” neither was suited “to phenomena observed in American commu-
nities.”
175
Wood hoped to develop a revised scale that would be adopted
for use throughout California. tellingly, however, he only pushed for the
use of a standard intensity scale
in public.
For research purposes, he and his
colleagues continued to use whatever scale best fit their data and interests.
At heart, Wood shared Byerly's pragmatic attitude toward intensity measure-
ment. As he put it to his Berkeley colleague, “I am under the impression that
you, personally, attach less importance to this than I may appear to you to
be doing. In reality, I think we make about the same appraisal of the situa-
tion. I am convinced that when it comes to publication it is desirable that
we all use the same scale and that a better scale than the Rossi-Forel is now
desirable and it is with this in mind that I have done this additional work.
What scales we choose to use in our own offices is quite a different thing,
but it is, I think, desirable to secure general adoption for professional use
of a better scale than the old Rossi-Forel.”
176
Wood's quest for an improved
scale was not about producing a universal standard or an absolute measure.
It was about reducing ambiguities in communication with the public.
Like Sieberg's 1912 scale, on which it was based, the “Modified Mer-
calli Scale” that Wood published with Frank neumann in 1931 relied partly
on human sensations to define its degrees. It simplified and streamlined
Sieberg's descriptions, eliminating ambiguities. But it also inserted explicit
statements about the mental states conducive to certain reported effects: a
shock of degree 4 “awakened few, especially light sleepers; frightened no
one, unless apprehensive from previous experience.” these were among
the social-psychological insights that Wood had gained from his experience
with volunteer observers. Wood and neumann also made clear that instru-
ments would not soon replace the human seismograph. they insisted that
“we do not know exactly what factors combine to constitute intensity as it
