Web Site Selling "Earthquake Forecasts" 219
waytoomuchcoffee writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is running a story on geoForecaster.com, a site that offers 'earthquake forecasts,' for a fee. California is looking into claims that the site is practicing geology without a license."
Web server practising geology without a licence (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. (Score:3, Funny)
They have better things to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They have better things to do (Score:2)
Re:They have better things to do (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember extremely well the time that crackpot (Iben Browning I think his name was?) predicted a major earthquake in the New Madrid seismic zone here in southeast Missouri. The amount of absolute ignorance that caused was astounding. I remember my school going to the great trouble to get *everything* bolted to the walls, and we started having earthquake drills too.
The bottom line is nobody can predict earthquakes yet, and someone claiming to be able to without publishing their findings in a peer-reviewed journal is just blowing smoke.
Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like typical snake oil salesmen to me. But I wonder, why on earth do you need a license to practice geology?
The Fark school of headline writing =) (Score:2)
Coincidentally, that site also mentions Slashdot.
~Berj
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Informative)
Same reason you need a license to practice civil engineering in most states.
Earthquakes are a significant risk in many parts of California. When you're planning a building (e.g., a hotel), both geologists and engineers are important in minimizing the risk to the people using the building.
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
Beause the lawyers have already won.
Re:Oh no! (Score:4, Informative)
If that's not enough to make you not want to move to California, last week I saw gas prices at 2.40 a gallon in San Francisco.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Doesn't this just mean that if there was no licencing scheme, lots of B Ark candidates who would otherwise end up as scientologists or politicians or lawyers or sports fans etc might end up shredded, crushed and/or toasted.
I am struggling to see a downside here.
If that's not enough to make you not want to move to California, last week I saw gas prices at 2.40 a gallon in San Francisco.
If I'd need a car enough to care about the fuel price, I'm not gonna want to go there in the first place.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
And MUNI, that's still a dollar, right?
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, does this mean that any random person is forbidden from saying something like "My knee is itching, an earthquake is coming soon" without a license? Of course not. The difference is when you claim to be professional, and charge money for that information. It then becomes commerce, and something that can be regulated. Licenses are usually required to show that you at least have some basic knowledge and understanding of the field that an individual or a corporation is proclaiming to be a master of. For example, there are engineering licenses, medical licenses, and so on and so forth, since failure to live up to the expectations of their field can do real damages.
Now, on the other hand if this website claimed something like "This information is for entertainment purposes only" they might be able to avoid the licensing restrictions, much like telephone pyschics do to some degree. Though, if I recall, Mrs. Cleo recently got nailed for fraud. The point is, the rules change, and you need to be somewhat accountable when you start charging money for your services.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
This is not an argument for a licencing scheme, but for recognised qualifications and insurance employees knowing their job well enough to ask someone if they are qualified.
The important difference being that qualifications are handed out by (in this instance) geologists, licences are handed out by lawyers and beurocrats.
Same problem in new zealand. (Score:2, Informative)
It sucks
Just a 2.5... (Score:5, Funny)
Say what? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm glad I don't live in California. I'd hate to learn that my checking the webicorders [washington.edu] could be illegal.
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Actually, I visited there several weeks ago to look at the grad school (which I will probably attend). I knew it was Berkeley because all of us recruits got free coupons for fair trade organic coffee. When I mentioned this to my host, he said there had been a city ordinance on the ballot to mandate a fine and jail time for any vendor selling coffee that was not fair trade, organic, and shade grown. (It failed, but more than 30% voted for it.)
JAIL TIME. FOR COFFEE. Jesus.
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
What's wrong with that? The coffee is free, isn't harmful to the environment, and some coffee farmer got a fair deal. The coffee still costs the same as a non-organic, non-fair-trade cup anywhere at Starbucks or the gas-station. It's a good deal.
The coffee measure was really stupid. I personally buy free-trade, organic coffee on a regular basis, and everyone I know voted against the measure.
I've been in Berkeley for 3 years (SF for 6 years before that). Most of the bad press you see is exaguration and hype, and it's not really relevant outside the University, Telegraph Ave, and nearby neighborhoods.
However, if you're attending school at UCB and you get to go outside once in a while, you will be in the midst of it all. It can be very entertaining.
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Absolutely not. However, if you were running a *commercial* mining operation and hired geologist who were either not licensed, or were not in the process of taking the appropriate tests to become licensed, you would be in trouble.
"I'm glad I don't live in California."
As far as I know, damn near all states require professional geologist to be licensed. The shitty thing is that there is no standardized exam yet, so being licensed in one state may not be good enough if you get a job in another state. I considered taking the Missouri test, because it is compatible with a few other states, but it costs a lot of money and was going to be more trouble than it's worth for me right now.
26 states register/certify geologists (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of US states regulate [asbog.org] their geologists (Washington isn't on this list, but Washington hardly regulates anything).
Do any states register geologists?
Yes. Twenty-six states now have registration or certification laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Puerto Rico also has passed a registration law.
California has more geologic activity in it's little pinky then most states have in their whole territory. Regulation and strict building standards is why over 30-million Californians can survive in Earthquake, flood & landslide country. The potential for fraud is enormous. As a homeowner, I'm glad for the regulation.
In 1989, a 7.1 [ucsc.edu] earthquake in the SF Bay Area killed 62 people.
By contrast, in 1999 a 7.4 [eqe.com] earthquake hit Turkey, killing over 30,000 people. Turkey has regulation, but doesn't enforce it.
Yes, their are many factors involved in these two numbers, but regulation saved many lives in 1989.
YOU ARE A PINK BUNNY (Score:2, Funny)
Is this for real? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that a joke or what, I am astounded that there is a law against someone "practicing geology without a license", I'm interested, what does it take to get a "geology license", how much does it cost? What if someone in japan hosted a site predicting earthquakes in california, what then? This whole thing seems rather bizarre to me.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2)
You must be a looney!
Re:Is this for real? (Score:5, Informative)
7841. An applicant for registration as a geologist shall have all
the following qualifications:
(a) Not have committed any acts or crimes constituting grounds for
denial of licensure under Section 480.
(b) Meet one of the following educational requirements fulfilled
at a school or university whose geological curricula meet criteria
established by rules of the board:
(1) Graduation with a major in geology.
(2) Completion of 30 semester units in geological science courses
leading to a major in geology, of which at least 24 units are in the
third or fourth year, or graduate courses.
(c) Have at least seven years of professional geological work
which shall include either a minimum of three years of professional
geological work under the supervision of a registered geologist or a
registered civil or petroleum engineer, except that prior to July 1,
1970, professional geological work shall qualify under this
subdivision if it is under the supervision of a qualified geologist
or a registered civil or petroleum engineer, or a minimum of five
years' experience in responsible charge of professional geological
work. Professional geological work does not include routine
sampling, laboratory work, or geological drafting.
Each year of undergraduate study in the geological sciences shall
count as one-half year of training up to a maximum of two years, and
each year of graduate study or research counts as a year of training.
Teaching in the geological sciences at college level shall be
credited year for year toward meeting the requirement in this
category, provided that the total teaching experience includes six
semester units per semester, or equivalent if on the quarter system,
of third or fourth year or graduate courses.
Credit for undergraduate study, graduate study, and teaching,
individually, or in any combination thereof, shall in no case exceed
a total of four years towards meeting the requirement for at least
seven years of professional geological work as set forth above.
The ability of the applicant shall have been demonstrated by the
applicant having performed the work in a responsible position, as the
term "responsible position" is defined in regulations adopted by the
board. The adequacy of the required supervision and experience shall
be determined by the board in accordance with standards set forth in
regulations adopted by it.
(d) Successfully pass a written examination that incorporates a
national examination for geologists created by a nationally
recognized entity approved by the board, and a supplemental
California specific examination. The California specific examination
shall test the applicant's knowledge of state laws, rules and
regulations, and of seismicity and geology unique to practice within
this state. The board shall use the national examination on or
before June 30, 2000.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2)
(b) Each specialty geologist certified under this chapter may, upon certification, obtain a seal of the design authorized by the board bearing the registrant's name, number of his certificate and the legend "certified specialty geologist. "
So the question would seem to be, is this company fraudulently displaying a certificate with the legend "certified specialty geologist"? How exactly does this forbid practicing geology without a license?
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2)
Whats the big deal? (Score:3, Funny)
I predict ... (Score:5, Funny)
Be sure to send me your credit card information so you can be billed the $9.95 you owe me for this information.
Re:I predict ... (Score:5, Funny)
This is a good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the reality is increasingly that many in the scientific profession achieve success by attracting public attention, the public often being a poor judge of true innovation. Why? Because if you aren't making wild claims, CNN just doesn't care, and how does a Professor that has made a genuine contribution to their field compete with an idiot that is on CNN every second day?
There are those that have made a career out of telling the media what they want to hear. People who gladly accept publicity even when their self-aggrandization hurts serious research in their field.
For the perfect example, learn a little about the career of Kevin Warwick [kevinwarwick.org.uk], the UK's foremost pseudo-scientist.
Science and academia are increasingly a joke. For some time now, it has been more about public image than genuine contribution to the human understanding of the world around them.
Try talking to a reporter about science (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever tried talking to a reporter about something vaguely scientific? I agree with you that there are people in the public eye who make a living out of hyping up the media, but I tend to disagree with a lot of what you've said.
As someone who's had to talk to the media on several occasions about scientific subjects, I can say with some certainty that with very few exceptions, the media does everything they possibly can to sensationalise whatever information you give it. They can and do chop and change whatever you might say to put whatever spin they want to put on it, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Welcome to capitalism, where populist media determines public opinion.
I've seen lots of friends get caught out by this. It's easy to read people quoted in the paper as saying something, and assume they were stupid to say it. In actuality it's much more likely that the reporter's chopped out every second word and rearranged some sentances to get a desired effect as well as completely and absolutely ignoring the 95% of your conversation where you stressed that whatever you said was excessively unlikely. They will have done just enough to have quoted you completely out of context, but stopped mind numbingly short of mis-quoting altogether.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
slashdot.org has received a warning from regulators who have alleged that the service is a sham and amounts to wilful Denial Of Service attacks.
From the FAQ (Score:2, Informative)
Our proprietary methodology is based on a combination of published research and our own in-house research, which has been under development for the past three decades. We use a multitude of techniques to derive our forecasts and take a global approach in our models. There is simply no way to accurately and reliably forecast earthquakes using a single methodology.
Meaning, there is simply no way to accurately and reliably forecast earthquakes at all.
Re:From the FAQ (Score:2)
There is, it's done in Japan. They can predict earthquakes with relatively high accuracy a good 15 seconds before they happen...
Do it Yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
The NEIC [usgs.gov] gives you all the data you need [usgs.gov] to predict your own Earthquake as accurately as any other internet-diploma geologist [indiana.edu].
That's like... (Score:4, Funny)
That's like living in Vancouver or Seattle and paying for a weather forcast that tells you it's going to rain.
Re:That's like... (Score:2)
For all of the "Why license geologists?" people... (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like this is geared more towards professional geologists than amateurs.
Licensing programs are offensive to a free society (Score:3, Insightful)
But governments aren't skilled professionals, they're organizations that threaten to use force on people who disobey them. That may be an appropriate thing to do for stopping rapists and murderers, but it's a highly inappropriate tool for society to use on unlicensed housepainters, or for people who want to operate businesses without paying protection money. Sometimes they're able to hire people who are competent enough to decide who should be licensed, but then sometimes they hire people like the bozos at the Patent Office. The classic argument for why they're necessary is licensing medical professionals - and while they _have_ driven lots of dangerous snake oil peddlers out of business, they've also radically raised the cost of medicine by limiting the supply of approved medical schools, thereby limiting the number of doctors allowed to practice, and by requiring many services to be done by full-scale doctors when a skilled nurse could do most of them just as well, and requiring that people get prescriptions from doctors to buy medicine when they're usually intelligent enough to make their own choices for most normal problems.
In this case, if the government wants to bust these guys for being a scam that's selling bogus services to the public, that would be perfectly reasonable, but instead they're threatening to bust them for not getting a state shingle on their wall.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:4, Insightful)
Government licensing programs are an attempt by various groups to get the government to give their members a monopoly and interfere with their competition. Occasionally they're done with good intentions, but they're still offensive to a free society. Certification is a different matter - if I'm hiring someone to do something life-threatening or risky, I'd want a skilled professional to do it, and certifications by professional organizations can help me make that decision.
As much of an anarchist as I am, I have to disagree with you. When my partner and I registered our business with the state of Washington, it was just a matter of declaring our classification, stating our size, and giving a physical address and other contact information. The reason? So the state government can send out tax filing information, so they can make sure they get their chunk. In order to do business, you have to let the government know you're doing business, and that's all the license amounts to.
In other businesses, though, the license includes a lot more important shit. For instance, not anyone can go into the mechanic business. You have to demonstrate that you can dispose of used oil and other fluids in an environmentally safe fashion (dumping them down the toilet is unacceptable). In the food business you have to demonstrate that you can prepare, cook, and serve food without giving out food poisoning as a seasoning.
In the state of california, I can see a definite interest for the government to try to filter out shysters in the earthquake business. Ever yell earthquake in a movie theater? Well, start up a business and pass yourself off as a geologist and start selling people "earthquake insurance" because your methods have accurately predicted a 6 point earthquake in the next 6 months. After 6 months of work, pack up and go to a different county or something.
Now, I don't like the idea of having a master list of who's allowed to do business in a given area, but with people screaming left and right about how this or that business fucked 'em over, what's the state to do? Have you got a better idea?
I know, the state shouldn't have to protect people from their own stupidity, but a good shyster does his damndest to convince people no matter who they are. And just for the record, I don't much care for the fact that states protect people from their own stupidity as much as possible.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:2)
Defrauding people, dumping used oil down the drain, and poisoning people are already illegal. Licensing programs simply assume that you're already guilty until you get your license.
but with people screaming left and right about how this or that business fucked 'em over, what's the state to do?
How about telling those people to grow up and make better decisions next time? Or tell them to get a lawyer and sue -- this used to be the reason we had courts.
Have you got a better idea?
Independent private-sector certifications. Need a mechanic? Look for the certification.
But if you trust your good friend to fix your car, you ought to be able to hire him to do it without fearing the license police.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:2)
Of course there should be reasonable limits on liscencure, and your examples highlight the system's abuse. But what are some good guidelines for what gets liscenced and what doesn't?
I suggest:
1) The government itself has an interest in hiring qualified individuals.
2) A likelyhood of making poor long term choices, like prescribing antibiotics left and right.
3) Mistakes result in high societal costs, and these mistakes have commonly known solutions. In other words, there is a high correlation between passing a test and not making high risk mistakes.
There is another concern, however. We don't want to impose too great a cost on the economy through liscensure, so perhaps instead of liscence to practice we want liscence to practice with the government. This often occurs in Engineering fields, though some employers look for liscensure as a means of certification. What kinds of criteria should make a liscence manditory for practice? Perhaps:
1) The work is unreversable; once done cannot be undone
Of course these are just suggestions, and as such require both further inspection from myself and from others. We must be careful, we're not looking to justify the status quo, but to develop a new status quo.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:2)
You see, the thing about a free society is that things just happen the way they happen. You don't have to trust that the smartest, deepest-thinking, most uncorrupted, luckiest, best-choice-making leaders are there to make everyone's choices for them.
I'm not saying you don't have the right answers to the licensing question. Even if you do (or especially if you do), you're not the one that makes the rules. The rules that a non-free society ends up with tend to harm one group of people unjustly for the benefit of another group. And the rules offer no guarentee of happiness for anyone except the guy who makes the rules.
Freedom is better.
In New Jersey you can't get a barber's license (Score:2)
And the black women's hair-braiding fashion requires a cosmetologist's license to practice - they've busted people for practicing without one.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:2)
The trouble with licensing iseen't the result - it's the requirements to get the license.
What sounds reasonable:
A) To get a licence, you must pass a really difficult test and demonstrate
B) To get a licence, you must spend 3 years in any crappy shool of your choice and work for 7 years of in the field,in any crappy compay of your choice.
For smart people like you, you'd rather hit the books and choose A. Unfortunatly most licensing requiremnts are closer to B.
My brain has an almost infinate capacity for knowledge*, but I onoy have 40 more years on this earth. I should not have to spend 10 years of my life in drudgery to get another license, when I could quickly learn enough in a year, with concentration, to pass a difficult test.
* except for spelling.
Re:Licensing programs are offensive to a free soci (Score:2)
Outside of the medical field, liscencure is only required by the government if you want to work for the government. Some employers often desire liscenced engineers, even though they don't contract to the government.
As far as I can tell, the real reason doctors are expensive is good old Malpractice Insurance. Insurance is expensive, but losing your practice with 20k left to go on your school debt is more so. The insurance company knows its shit. They reward the most court defendable medical processes with rate reductions. Of course, this often means more doctor involvement (which drives up costs), but your practice really really fears malpractice, far more so than the cost of hiring another doctor.
Our Government is errected to establish the peace needed for prosperity, not to oppress and tax. If you have any specific problems with government liscensure that aren't paranoid ramblings about the Man, please let us hear them. These things are done on a State to State basis, though many times there is a common theme.
In addition to IANAL... (Score:2, Funny)
cracks down on them for not being geologists.
You don't need a license (Score:4, Funny)
to practice geology. Only a head full of rocks.
My dog practices without a license... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't realize that her lack of a license was a reason to discredit her. *sigh* I'm really disappointed.
Re:My dog practices without a license... (Score:2)
Re:My dog practices without a license... (Score:3, Funny)
If I recall correctly it was a cat though, and a day or two before a rather large Earthquake occured the owner of the cat noticed it was acting really strange. They thought it was sick and took the cat to the vet, which concluded that nothing was wrong with the animal except maybe a little stress.
They had one of their experts who theorized that animals such as cats and dogs have a sense for these sorts of things, much like how they also can sense when their owner is depressed and try to give a little extra love to them (don't go there sickos).
It was an interesting theory and one I actually think is at least partially true. Anyone know of any sites that talk about this more?
Re:My dog practices without a license... (Score:2)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Re:My dog practices without a license... (Score:2)
Kryten: I suggest switching from blue alert to red alert.
Cat: Forget red alert, let go up all the way to brown alert!
Kryten: There's no such thing as brown alert.
Cat: You won't be saying that in a minute. Just don't say I didn't alert you!
Re:My dog practices without a license... (Score:2)
Yup (Score:2)
I believe the correct term is "DER" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I believe the correct term is "DER" (Score:2)
The way my geology professor put it was this:
Using statistics, it's possible to predict that - for example - next year around X number of people will die in highway accidents in Washington State. However, that doesn't mean that it's possible to predict exactly when and where those accidents will take place. Sometimes X will be higher, and sometimes lower, depending on other variables.
Similarly, it's possible to build up statistics about the average frequency of earthquakes for a given area. This will give you data like "there is generally a large-scale earthquake in the Seattle area once every 50 years." This doesn't mean that there is guaranteed to be an earthquake every 50 years, or even every 40-60.
Part of the reason that earthquakes are so unpredictable is that (contrary to popular belief) they aren't caused by a long-term build up of pressure along the fault line. They happen when the plates suddenly catch on each other, then break free.
Let's test them scientifically (Score:5, Insightful)
Be sure to check that they don't change any of their data after the fact - i.e. that their archive of past forecasts really does match what they predicted. Also, make sure that the "updates" they make to each forecast aren't too dramatic - if the forecast says that there'll be an earthquake here in one week, but tomorrow the forecast says it will actually be 300 miles away from here, then it's a lot less useful as a resource.
Reading through their site, they certainly don't show many of the typical warning signs of a scam. Sure, it would be nice if they published their methodology, but it doesn't really matter. We can test the accuracy of their system as a "black box" without their cooperation, simply by comparing their forecasts to reality.
That said, here are my main concerns:
1. They claim 90% accuracy of earthquakes magnitude 6.5 and higher. Their sample period is three years - how many 6.5+ earthquakes have there been since 2000? Also, does this mean that of all earthquakes that did happen, they predicted them with 90% accuracy, or that of the earthquakes they forecast, they were 90% accurate? With the latter interpretation, they wouldn't be penalized for earthquakes they didn't forecast at all.
2. They give themselves a near-perfect score if they underestimate the magnitude of an earthquake. Is this reasonable? Should they get credit for forecasting a 2.5-3.5 earthquake if a 5.5 hits? Or a 7.5?
3. After the first time they forecast an event (up to a year in advance!) they update their prediction daily. After the predicted time window has passed, do they score themselves based on the most recent prediction, or based on the first prediction? One could imagine that their methodology really does work - but only two days in advance. To make it seem like they can predict much farther in advance, they just make up random predictions and update them daily, changing the closest random prediction two days before a "real" prediction says an event will occur.
Rainfall and moon position... (Score:2)
"Practicing" without a license (Score:2, Insightful)
You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:4, Interesting)
But doing scientific research into the planet? What is there to screw up there? Measuring some vibrations is hardly life-threatening, even if the quake turns out to be.
Watch out, they'll make you get a licence to be able to program soon.
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:5, Informative)
But do you really want just anyone doing geological assays for construction projects? Is that an area in which you want to say "Fuck it, caveat emptor?"
In that light, it doesn't seem at all ridiculous to license geologists. Not that selling earthquake predictions should necessarily be illegal (aside from existing laws against fraud), but maybe the state is just trying to raise awareness of the difference between a licensed geologist and Joe Shmoe with a rock collection. (Similar to nurses' unions pointing out that a "nurse practitioner" is not held to the same standards as a registered nurse.)
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2, Insightful)
But do you really want just anyone writing the code that keeps your ATM PIN numbers secure? You could apply the licencing argument to almost every profession.
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2)
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2)
Or they could just take a hands-off approach, let the chips fall where they may, and let everything be settled by lawsuits after the fact. Wonder what everyone making comments about how "the greedy lawyers have already won" would feel about that.
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2)
Fair argument, but I wasn't trying to be overly specific on the ATM PIN thing.
What about software that models building damage, earthquake impact on buildings, bridge strength, etc? I get the feeling there's no one regulating the development of these applications, even though the lives of hundreds could be at risk.
One example is the military helicopter that crashed in Scotland a few years ago. The pilot got the blame for ages, but eventually it came out that the software malfunctioned.
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2)
That software is used by engineers who need to be licensed to be in the business of building things. They have oversight over the use of the software much as they have oversight over the construction workers who are doing the riveting and welding. The state doesn't need or want to micromanage every little aspect; it simply wants to know that individuals in certain key positions know what they're doing. Apparently geologist is one of those positions, while software engineer and cement mixing guy are not.
Besides -- and I don't really know much about this -- wouldn't engineering or other "mission-critical" software generally be developed to ISO [www.iso.ch] standards, thus obviating the need for additional special government certifications?
Re:You need a licence to do geology now? (Score:2)
More information (Score:4, Informative)
- a story from the Southeast Missourian website [semissourian.com] that features several quotes such as this one from Professor Nicholas Tibbs of the Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau:
-
this entry on the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics" website [utexas.edu] identifying a Michael J. Kozuch, Ph.D. as being a geoscientist "with active interests in Honduras"
- this web page listing Michael J. Kozuch in an academic reference to a geological map of Honduras [calstatela.edu].
- this web page listing him Michael as part of the GNS of New Zealand [noaa.gov]. The GNS, formerly New Zealand's Geological Survey, which was transformed into a government-owned company in 1992. Interestingly, the GNS website hosts the New Zealand Hazard Watch web page [gns.cri.nz] which provides "up-to-date information on volcanoes, floods, landslips, tsunamis, solar activity and earthquakes." The GNS website identifies Mike Kozuch as one of two project leaders of the Quake Tracker Development Team. Perhaps Michael used his experience with this development to try to make a website that was more financially rewarding.
My take? Present knowledge and technology cannot forecast an earthquake. In my opinion anybody that represents otherwise is incorrect...you can be the judge of the reasons for their statements to the contrary."You can't accurately predict earthquakes," he said. "The technology to do that doesn't exist. It sounds like a scam to me."
Michael J. Kozuch; Ph.D., Peace Corps Volunteer Geologist, Honduras 1987-1990; Seismologist with the Institute of Geologic & Nuclear Sciences (New Zealand). Honduras Expertise: General geology of Honduras, tectonic modeling and geophysics Current activities: Investigation of novel approaches in seismic hazard analysis and collection of geophysical information relevant to Honduras, email: m.kozuch@gns.cri.nz Mail: P.O. IGNS, P.O. Box 1320, Wellington, New Zealand, Tel: 64-4-473-8208 (wk) or 225 Country Club Dr., San Francisco, CA 94132 USA. additional information at: http://www.gphs.vuw.ac.nz:80/staff/kozuch.html
Yet more information! (Score:3, Interesting)
Woohoo...too bad I didn't get this in my previous posting (see above). Check this out... this comes from the Earthquakes FAQ from the Quake Tracker website created by Michael Kozuch, the guy responsible for geoForecaster.com:
4. Can earthquakes be predicted?
It is possible to estimate where big earthquakes are likely in the next 50 to 100 years, based on geological investigations and the historical record of earthquakes. However, it is not yet possible to accurately predict the time and location of the next earthquake. A number of physical changes have been observed before some earthquakes, but the problem is that so far, no particular change has been noted consistently. Some scientists have observed changes in the earth's magnetic and electric fields, gas emissions, changes in water well levels, and changes in the levels of dissolved gases in groundwater. Other scientists have noted changes in the frequency and location of small earthquakes. A very small number of earthquakes have been successfully predicted. The most notable success was near Haicheng, China in 1975, where 90,000 people were evacuated a few hours before an earthquake that destroyed 90 percent of the buildings. The prediction was based on unusual animal behaviour and a greatly increased number of small earthquakes (foreshocks) that suddenly stopped. One of the animal observations was that snakes came out of hibernation and died due to the cold. It is now thought that this was caused by unseasonably warm weather. However, scientists wrongly predicted a major quake in Kwantung Province, and for two months millions of people lived in tents before authorities decided the prediction was wrong. Later in 1976, an unpredicted quake, magnitude 7.8, in China's Tangshan Province took 250,000 lives. It was the most disastrous earthquake this century. Since then, China has moved its resources away from earthquake prediction and into improving the earthquake resistance of buildings.
I find it highly amusing that the FAQ page of the website hosting his earlier project says you can't predict an earthquake. I guess he didn't read the page.
Easy enough to do (Score:4, Funny)
They "predict" a couple and then they use their secretly hidden devices to cause them.
Remember that "earthquake swarm" in San Ramon (a town of burb claves just over the hills from SanFran/Oakland)??? I think it made national news (my dad in New England rang me about it)...
Perhaps that was their testing of their "prediction" scheme.
So they predict a few, then the maybe "predict" an 8.5 for San Francisco if they don't pony up perhaps Venture Capital.
"Maybe you're safe, see? Or maybe there's an earthquake coming to your mudda's house. Or your kid's school, see? So let's see some investment here or we'll predict the penninsula back to orchards"
Talking about frauds (Score:2, Insightful)
I predict a major earthquake in California within the next 10 years. Do I have to have a license also to say that?
you know... (Score:2)
yes, and they are basing their forecasts on... (Score:3, Funny)
Finally... (Score:2, Funny)
And Video Professor will teach me computer once and for all!
And the Tornado will improve my car's gas milage!
And those $153 a month diet pills will help me lose weight!
And, oh shoot, I'm broke because I believed too many infomercials again...
At least I have this bottle of snake oil !
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
5.0 quake shook New Madrid fault line in 2002 (Score:2)
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
If the quake hits at a 9, then St. Louis will get about a force 8. Chicago will get about a force 4 quake, which will do plenty of damage because none of the buildings have any resistance to the harmonic motions that are the effects of the quake. See http://hsv.com/genlintr/newmadrd for a decent map, otherwise, do a google search for "New Madrid fault".
A license to sell lemonade too? (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps the licensing teaching part is ok, ( perhaps ) but the rest just goes too far into 'stupid-land' (tm)
In Releated News... Rock hounds from all over Ca. (Score:2, Funny)
what about tabloids? (Score:2)
Dupe forecasting (Score:2, Funny)
geology license? (Score:2)
I didn't know you had to have a license to look at a rock...
Going to far? (Score:2)
What the hell? I would understand if they were investigating for fraud, but telling me I can't practice geology should get every boyscout and student busted. Idiots.
Malachi
Earthquakes can be predicted without geology (Score:2)
If these earthquake prediction distributors have developed a method to monitor this, they could issue forecasts that may actually be based on relevant statistics without "resorting" to geology or any other kind of science.
Re:Earthquakes can be predicted without geology (Score:2)
The website FAQ says that they do not incorporate animal behavior into their models.
Dude.... (Score:2)
Re:My NUTZZZZZ! (Score:2)
Re:Any who coerce to contract is breaking the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, a lot of different factors go into choosing a site for a major building. One of them is the stability of the ground. It's generally considered a Bad Idea to put 50 story highrise buildings on loose gravel. Thus, you need a geologist to conduct a survey and figure out whether the ground can support the weight of your planned construction. If you don't take that step, your new building might start looking like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Re:You are confused. Certification versus License. (Score:2)
I copied+pasted the definitions that may have applied more correctly to the premise of law
Um, did you make sure you were licensed to do that with the content they provided you? Or is that covered by fair use? :)
Laugh, it's a joke.
Re:Any who coerce to contract is breaking the law (Score:2, Informative)
First off, the "unalienable rights" you are quoting comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Tenth Ammendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Secondly, how can an amendment to the Constitution be unconstitutional? By definition it is part of the document and hence the supreme law of the land. Also, if you knew anything about law or government, you'd know that the 10th ammendment was placed as an appeasement to the states during the ratification of the Constitution. It has seen little or no use since the Civil War.
Next off, the state of California has made no claims to owning earthquake waves. Anyone can study earthquakes and geology to their hearts content and publish said reseach. However, the moment you begin trading your reseach and expertise for profit, the state of California has reserved the right to regulate that commerce. There is ample precedent for this in the law: lawyers, engineers, and doctors all have certifications they must pass before they can practice their profession. This is the guarntee the state gives its citizens that when they go out and get advice from a professional, they are getting someone with real credentials. Also, note that this is governed by the states and the states' constitutions, not the US Constitution.
Next time, know WTF you are talking about before you go trolling. Please don't compare rational laws and law-making to an Orwellian dictatorship.
Re:Any who coerce to contract is breaking the law (Score:2)
Re:A better website idea (Score:2)
I copied+pasted the definitions that may have applied more correctly to the premise of law
Demonstrating you're a pussy doesn't classify as "practicing gynecology", Anonymous Coward.