Point well taken, but the number of [casualties] are not [necessarily] related to the magnitude, but rather with where they hit.
Rather, more people die in quakes when they occur close to population centers,
true, but MOST SMALL quakes near population centers cause no deaths at all.
Therefore,
the number of casualties due to quakes are related to BOTH the
magnitude AND the location.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Are Earthquakes Really on the Increase?
They're really asking the wrong question.
It should be: "Are the Number of Deaths Caused By Earthquakes Really on the Increase?"
The viewing public tends to get facts misconstrued, and oversimplifies what they
see. The fact is, that quakes have been IN THE NEWS more and more over the
past 30 years BECAUSE there have been increasing casualties. Why would the
news make headlines of large quakes in the wilderness where nobody is affected
and no damage to buildings occurs? Who cares? Seismologists perhaps, and
geologists, but that doesn't sell copy at the newsstand. "200,000 Die in One Day
Due to Earthquake and Tsunami" DOES sell copy. So it's in the public eye, and on
the public mind. When stories are reported more often, the public surmises, "Oh,
there must be more earthquakes lately." And the critics reply, "No, there have not
been more earthquakes lately." And the public surmises, "Gee, I was wrong again;
good thing there are experts around to tell me how to think."
We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.
A partial explanation [Explanation of WHAT? Why people are asking this question? Or, why are people asking about earthquakes?] may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years. The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes.
According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.
This is written by a guy with his nose stuck in the charts.
Who cares about the
number of earthquakes, if most of them cause no damage or deaths? If there
were 1000 quakes and no damage, that would not be news. But if there was only
ONE quake causing 1000 people to die, that's BIG NEWS. See the difference?
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it,
who cares?!This saying that, "because of ... the increased interest in the environment and
natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes," is a bit of a
red herring, for when has there ever been a report of the number of wild deer,
bear, jackrabbits and otters that died or were injured by an earthquake? When
has there been a report of the number of trees in the forest that fell down during
an earthquake? Do you see how ridiculous this can be? "The public" doesn't care
about natural disasters if they do not affect the lives of people. Perhaps isolated
pockets of environmentalist wackos care about all kinds of weird things, but that
doesn't sell copy, either.
By saying that better reporting and more seismograph stations make it SEEM like
more earthquakes have happened, it's pretty much saying that there have
ALWAYS been lots of earthquakes, but we just didn't
know about them, so it's our
PERCEPTION of the number of earthquakes that has increased, instead of the
actual number of earthquakes. This is akin to saying that, "If an earthquake
happens in the wilderness and nobody feels it, did it shake the ground?" That's
not news, that's not science, that's sophistry in action. And who cares?
It's not just what people ask or say, but what they're thinking when they say it. If
you go by what members post on this forum for example, and take it literally, you
do not get what they're trying to say, because of language imperfections. They
might leave an important word out. They might use improper grammar. They
might use a double negative improperly or say something entirely illogical. You've
got to read between the lines. And not infrequently, that introduces
misunderstandings, because it's easy to presume one thing when something else
was intended.
Add to this the media's penchant for oversimplification, which is so obvious when
the media reports on things regarding the Catholic faith, for example. They use
the wrong words, they presume the wrong things, and nobody should be surprised
when they come to the wrong conclusions.
Topic: Costa Rica Earthquake (Read 1496 times)