Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
confirmed, but in a manner that diverged fundamentally from my obser-
vations of seismic data in Bolivia. Specifically, while in other cases I could
perceive a deviation of the needle towards west-southwest, in this case an un-
ambiguous tendency towards south-southeast was detectable. By all appear-
ances this is a case of a so-called telluric earthquake (in the narrower sense),
which is essentially different from the cosmic earthquake (in the wider sense).
the difference expresses itself even in the density of impressions. With this
form of earthquake it happens that someone in the adjoining room notices
nothing of what is revealed to us unmistakably. My children, who at that time
were not yet asleep, did not notice a thing, while my wife affirms that she felt
three shocks.
respectfully,
Civil engineer J. Berdach
Vienna, 2nd district, Glockengasse 17
71
Needless to say, anyone versed in the seismology of the day would have
found elements of this letter sufficiently ridiculous to doubt its authenticity:
namely, the writer's distinction between telluric and cosmic earthquakes,
his report of a deviation of his compass, and his attribution of high seismic-
ity to Bolivia. Nonetheless, Kraus was confident that the
Neue Freie Presse
“will be pleased at last to allow an expert to speak in the midst of so many
laymen.”
72
he was sure, too, that the editors would not cast doubt on a
correspondent who was so obviously Jewish.
73
he predicted rightly that the
letter would be printed. For ten years, he noted with satisfaction, the paper
had ignored his writing; now at last they had recognized him—but as an
engineer.
74
the liberal press needed scientists, Kraus argued. how else could it sus-
tain the “sensation” of a natural disaster without shaking faith in scientific
progress? to be sure, the papers craved catastrophe. As Kraus remarked after
a volcanic eruption on Martinique in 1902, the volcanoes “vomit and they
continue to vomit [
speien
], since our papers' insatiable greed for news is
busy churning up the catastrophe with hitherto unseen hideousness.”
75
But
editors could not simply let the victims speak. As the seismologist Albin Be-
lar explained, providing “reassurance and enlightenment to the frightened
inhabitants of the stricken region” was among the “practical” tasks of mod-
ern earthquake science.
76
In Kraus's words, each paper “managed to grub
for itself a man of science.” Not that scientists had anything of substance
to add to eyewitness testimony in the immediate wake of disaster. eduard
Suess could do no more than repeat “what could be gathered from previous
