[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] debate

[Seth Stein]

There's a nice summary of the case for open discussion of such issues:

"Above all, users of predictions, along with other stakeholders in the
prediction process, must question predictions. For this questioning to
be effective, predictions must be as transparent as possible to the
user. In particular, assumptions, model limitations, and weaknesses in
input data should be forthrightly discussed. Institutional
motives must be questioned and revealed... The prediction process
must be open to external scrutiny. Openness is important for
many reasons but perhaps the most interesting and
least obvious is that the technical products of predictions
are likely to be "better" - both more robust scientifically
and more effectively integrated into the democratic process -
when predictive research is subjected to the tough love
of democratic discourse... Uncertainties must be clearly
understood and articulated by scientists, so users understand
their implications. If scientists do not understand the
uncertainties - which is often the case - they must say so.
Failure to understand and articulate uncertainties contributes
to poor decisions that undermine relations among scientists and
policy makers."

Sarewitz, D., R. Pielke, Jr., and R. Byerly, Jr. (2000).
Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the
Future of Nature, Island Press, Washington D.C..


To: Allen Jones <jonesal at myuw.net>, 
ceus-earthquake-hazards at geohazards.usgs.gov
Subject: Re: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] reply to Joe Tomasello; buildings 
codes and earthquake hazard

I agree with Allen Jones.  I recall the BSSC workshops that I attended
in the early 90's where we discussed similar topics that have a huge
impact on the codes and subsequently the costs associated with designing
and retrofitting structures. Further, I have had the experience of being
in several earthquakes on the west coast. There is no correct answer
here, but the information being presented (especially open discussions
on input used to develop the maps) provides pertinent information for
engineering practitioners such as myself to be able to weigh these
important points.  Nobody is being judged here.  I would like to see the
forum remain open so that all ideas and viewpoints can be heard.

Larry Goldfarb

-----Original Message-----
From: ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.usgs.gov
[mailto:ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.usgs.gov] On Behalf
Of Allen Jones
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:14 PM
To: ceus-earthquake-hazards at geohazards.usgs.gov
Subject: Re: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] reply to Joe Tomasello; buildings
codes and earthquake hazard

Speaking for myself, I find these discussions very interesting and
informative.  I find think this sort of intellectual debate healthy and
provides a perspective missing from publications.  I encourage you to
keep the discussion public and appreciate everyone's efforts in taking
the time to respond.

Seth Stein
William Deering Professor 
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
1850 Campus Drive
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208
(847) 491-5265 FAX: (847) 491-8060 E-MAIL: seth at earth.northwestern.edu
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth