<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Some people may have interpreted the end
of the ScienceNOW article to mean that the USGS hazard evaluation methodology
failed to predict the Haiti, Wenchuan, and Japan earthquakes. The methodology
was not designed to predict the time, size and location of the next big
earthquake, and the USGS does not use it that way.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
The probabilistic methods that the USGS and other organizations use to
estimate hazard are not predictions. Instead, the methods give estimates
of the strength of shaking that we'd expect (at specified odds) to be exceeded
in the next 50 years at some particular place. The specified odds
are usually about one in ten or one in fifty. If a particular place is
shaken at or above the estimated level, the cause could be either a big
earthquake far away, or a smaller one nearby. Also, the expected shaking
could occur at any time from tomorrow to 50 years from now...or not at
all, if it beats the odds. Nothing in a probabilistic hazard estimate specifies
the size, time, and location of the next big earthquake.<br>
<br>
Making a prediction and estimating the hazard are fundamentally different
in purposes, assumptions, calculations, results, and uses. A failure to
get either of them right has no bearing on the validity of the other one.</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-----------------------------------------<br>
Rus Wheeler<br>
research geologist<br>
phone: (303) 273-8589<br>
fax: (303) 273-8600<br>
email: wheeler@usgs.gov<br>
<br>
paper mail:<br>
Russell L. Wheeler<br>
U.S. Geological Survey<br>
P.O. Box 25046, M.S. 966<br>
Lakewood, CO 80225<br>
<br>
physical address, FedEx, UPS:<br>
1711 Illinois St., rm. 442<br>
Golden, CO 80401</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Oliver Boyd <olboyd@usgs.gov></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"ceus-earthquake-hazards@geohazards.usgs.gov"
<ceus-earthquake-hazards@geohazards.usgs.gov></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">04/27/2011 10:09 AM</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] Article on
Central U.S. Earthquake hazard by expert
panel</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Sent by:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces@geohazards.usgs.gov</font></table>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">Dear CEUS earthquake hazards email list
subscribers,<br>
Below is a link to a short article about the findings of a National Earthquake
Prediction Evaluation Council expert panel regarding central United States
earthquake hazard.<br>
</font><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u><br>
</u></font><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/expert-panel-central-us-faces.html"><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/expert-panel-central-us-faces.html</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Oliver<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
Oliver Boyd, Ph.D.<br>
Research Geophysicist<br>
U.S. Geological Survey<br>
3876 Central Ave<br>
Memphis, TN<br>
Phone: (901) 678-3463<br>
FAX: (901) 678-4897</font><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
CEUS-Earthquake-Hazards mailing list<br>
CEUS-Earthquake-Hazards@geohazards.usgs.gov<br>
</font></tt><a href="https://geohazards.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/ceus-earthquake-hazards"><tt><font size=2>https://geohazards.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/ceus-earthquake-hazards</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>