Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
league. This critic was a geophysicist familiar with theoretical models of
macroseismic data, but with no experience collecting and evaluating obser-
vations. “Although the primary data are subjective,” he continued, “it makes
sense to use a more objective method of analysis, for example computer
programs for the drawing of isoseismal lines.” Those familiar with the in-
tricacies of felt reports tried to convince the Italian that analysis could not
be left to a computer. One colleague shot back, “Before we start working on
any computer program for isoseismal lines, we must make a unique defini-
tion of what an isoseismal line is.” Another noted that a computer “cannot
take into account the credibility of the observations.”
5
The bottom line was
that interpreting macroseismic observations was something of an art. It of-
ten forced the geophysicist to think like a psychologist or sociologist. By the
standards of other fields of twentieth-century physical science, the data and
methods of macroseismology seemed inexcusably subjective. As Ceci´ć puts
it, “the rest of seismologists think we're strange (who wants to have physics
without numbers? disgraceful!).”
6
Standard measures of disaster continued to elude the international sci-
entific community in the late twentieth century. When an earthquake oc-
curred near an international border, it was not uncommon for seismologists
in the affected countries to work independently of each other and come to
conclusions that do not match up. The international seismological commu-
nity has struggled in the past two decades to agree on uniform measures and
methods. Since 2006, European governments and reinsurance companies
have sponsored GEM, the Global Earthquake Model: “a uniform, indepen-
dent standard to calculate and communicate earthquake risk worldwide.”
GEM plans to develop a comprehensive and universal model of seismic
risk assessment (including a standard intensity scale and questionnaire),
available through open-source software. It aims to serve a broad spectrum
of users and prioritizes “community involvement” and “open debate.” As
of 2011, however, at least three different seismic intensity scales are in use
internationally.
7
This problem of international comparison is not confined to seismol-
ogy, as the Fukushima catastrophe of 2011 demonstrated. The International
Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, introduced in 1990, has much in
common with scales of seismic intensity. Its stated purpose is to give the
public a clear sense of the severity of an accident, and thus “facilitate a
common understanding between the technical community, the media and
the public.” Yet the scale seems to produce more confusion than clarity.
Like seismic intensity scales, INES involves a baffling variety of parameters.
When Japanese experts initially declared Fukushima a level 5 event, on par
