Can Earthquakes Be Predicted? The Science Behind the Claims

An amateur earthquake predictor, Brent Dmitruk, gained popularity online after a powerful magnitude 7.3 earthquake hit Northern California, north of Eureka, two months after he had forecast earthquakes in the region. His growing popularity on social media now seek his predictions for the future. Scientists, however, are quick to correct them that earthquakes cannot be predicted and that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains there is no scientifically accepted method for predicting them.

The unpredictability of earthquakes renders them among the most feared natural disasters. Millions of West Coast residents in the United States wait with bated breath for "the big one," a term for a potential high-magnitude earthquake that would devastate cities and redefine geographies. Scientists like Lucy Jones, a retired USGS seismologist, have worked for decades on earthquake probability and mitigation methods. But there is no scientific reason to anticipate that earthquakes should be anticipated with known timing, place, and size.

The area around Eureka, where Dmitruk foresaw an earthquake, is among the most seismically active in the U.S. It lies at the Mendocino Triple Junction, where three tectonic plates meet, causing continuous seismic activity. The region has experienced more than 700 quakes in the past year alone, according to the USGS, and is thus a region where seismic activity can be expected. While this past week's magnitude 7.3 earthquake was relatively rare, earthquakes in the region have happened before. Starting in 1900, five additional earthquakes of similar magnitude have been recorded there.

Seismology is under control—tectonic plates shift and build up tension along faults until the energy is released as an earthquake. But it is still not possible to predict exactly when and where the next great one will strike. Earthquake magnitudes are determined at rupture time, similar to a rip in paper continuing until something stops it. Although geological history tells us that large earthquakes do occur at regular periods, they cannot be forecast ahead of time by science.

In spite of this, mankind has always sought to predict earthquakes. Through the ages, man has attempted to identify patterns and, in the process, claimed to have made successful predictions. Dmitruk, who is not a scientist, has predicted a number of gigantic earthquakes, one of which, according to him, will hit Alaska or New Zealand and have devastating consequences all around the world. However, most of his past predictions did not come to pass, and his deadlines keep changing.

Scientists point out that random events sometimes appear to occur in sequence, but this is not necessarily predictive. The USGS states that for a prediction to be scientifically valid, it would have to include the time, location, and size of an earthquake. Current technology only allows calculations of probability over years, not precise predictions.

Conclusion:-
Even though earthquakes can't be predicted, preparation is vital. The Great ShakeOut, an annual earthquake drill, educates people on safety measures like Drop, Cover, and Hold On. ShakeAlert, the USGS-operated early warning system, detects initial seismic waves and sends a few seconds of warning before strong shaking occurs.

Rather than relying on unsubstantiated predictions, professionals recommend prioritizing preparedness. Seismic retrofitting of structures, practicing drills, and utilizing early warning systems are the most effective ways to mitigate earthquake risks. While people are drawn to the possibility of predicting disasters, science confirms that earthquakes remain unpredictable events.

Source and Credits:

US Geological Survey (USGS)

BBC News