6 ms·

Isn’t that a myth? Do you have any sources to back up your claim?

by tonmoy 9mo ago

indigodaddy 9mo ago
Various scientists in this video. The video is a great watch btw. https://youtu.be/HBluLfX2F_k https://youtu.be/HBluLfX2F_k (stresses build up and are often released through many small, unfelt earthquakes (25:54). If these small movements don't dissipate the stress, it can accumulate and lead to a powerful chain reaction (26:25) * disclaimer I used YouTube's built-in AI to find/summarize the timestamps, as I couldn't remember offhand where it was when I previously watched this.
- mturmon 9mo ago
  I don't believe the video quite says this (I watched the relevant section). It's worth noting that they are mostly interested in critical phenomena in general, and earthquakes are kind of a drive-by application, treated along with fires and sand piles. They do hint around the edges, but they don't head-on make the claim for earthquakes that small EQs materially lessen stress buildup and thereby make larger EQ's less likely. I was looking for a credential of one of the people they interview, to see if they are really a solid earth person or more of a critical phenomena person -- their names aren't easy to find. This particular myth ("small earthquakes relieve stress") is a bit of a stinker in the solid earth community, and I think a solid earth person would be quite careful about their words as they discuss this.
  - indigodaddy 9mo ago
    I think you've summed it up correctly. It's not proof and some scientists claiming some things isn't the same as studies/evidence. However, is there evidence that it's not true? The fact is we do have these smaller movements and earthquakes quite regularly, so we don't really know what would happen after a long absence of them (do we? I suppose there are simulations perhaps that could be run? But I don't know that that's proof either way). To me though it makes a lot of sense that it would/could spur a huge event.
__s 9mo ago
Seems like it, & each rank is 30x more energy than the last[1] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probability-earthquake-a-foreshock-a-larger-earthquake https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probability-earthquake-a-fore... Suggests 5% for larger quake to follow within week. But overall most sources I could find suggested it's hard to know, needs more research 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10wecl8/do_little_earthquakes_prevent_big_earthquakes https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10wecl8/do_litt...
jacquesm 9mo ago
https://www.geo.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/new-study-connects-earthquake-energy-release-strength-rocks-beneath-our-feet https://www.geo.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/new-study-connects-ear...
- criddell 9mo ago
  https://news.caloes.ca.gov/earthquake-myths-separating-fact-from-fiction/ https://news.caloes.ca.gov/earthquake-myths-separating-fact-... Myth 5 is "Small Earthquakes Relieve Pressure and Prevent Larger Ones"
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    Myth: new knowledge never trumps old knowledge. Check the dates on those two publications.
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    GP is correct; I'm not sure why CA gov is calling that a myth (it's not). However keep in mind that it's not necessarily true 100% of the time. Or at least the things it might seem to imply at first glance aren't true - the presence or absence of small quakes in a given period doesn't necessarily tell you anything useful about the future.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      Indeed. But I get why people are confused because it is a subtle difference between 'stress relieved through small earthquakes is stress expended' vs 'stress relieved through small earth quakes is not indicative of the magnitude of future events'. The long term absence of stress relief small quakes on a known fault line might be bad news, or no news at all, statistics are where the difference is here, not in particular events. See also, 'the big one' and various theories around it.
- mturmon 9mo ago
  I think you intended this to be a validation of the idea that small quakes relieve stress and therefore lower the chance of a large quake. The above link does not answer that question. It is relating stress release to "fault strength", or the maximum shear stress that can be withstood by the fault. There is an incidental relationship with depth that plays a role. The video linked nearby (on criticality) also does not address the question at issue. I'm only replying because I work adjacent to this area, and my understanding is that the idea that small EQ's release stress is a myth. Here [1] is another link, listed as #1 in the "Myths" category. And you can dig up quotes from none other than Lucy Jones [2] saying that this is a myth. I don't work directly in this area, so I'm not willing to say absolutely no. But I'd really like to see a head-on reference supporting the claim that it's not a myth. [1] https://earthquakes.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html https://earthquakes.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Jones
numpad0 9mo ago
This type of argument is kind of logical but not so immediately useful. Earthquakes just happen and no one is involved in that process. There could still be the big one coming, or that one might have been defused by this one. No one knows.

Isn’t that a myth? Do you have any sources to back up your claim?

by tonmoy 9mo ago

Isn’t that a myth? Do you have any sources to back up your claim?

Various scientists in this video. The video is a great watch btw. https://youtu.be/HBluLfX2F_k https://youtu.be/HBluLfX2F_k (stresses build up and are often released through many small, unfelt earthquakes (25:54). If these small movements don't dissipate the stress, it can accumulate and lead to a powerful chain reaction (26:25) * disclaimer I used YouTube's built-in AI to find/summarize the timestamps, as I couldn't remember offhand where it was when I previously watched this.

mturmon 9mo ago
I don't believe the video quite says this (I watched the relevant section). It's worth noting that they are mostly interested in critical phenomena in general, and earthquakes are kind of a drive-by application, treated along with fires and sand piles. They do hint around the edges, but they don't head-on make the claim for earthquakes that small EQs materially lessen stress buildup and thereby make larger EQ's less likely. I was looking for a credential of one of the people they interview, to see if they are really a solid earth person or more of a critical phenomena person -- their names aren't easy to find. This particular myth ("small earthquakes relieve stress") is a bit of a stinker in the solid earth community, and I think a solid earth person would be quite careful about their words as they discuss this.
- indigodaddy 9mo ago
  I think you've summed it up correctly. It's not proof and some scientists claiming some things isn't the same as studies/evidence. However, is there evidence that it's not true? The fact is we do have these smaller movements and earthquakes quite regularly, so we don't really know what would happen after a long absence of them (do we? I suppose there are simulations perhaps that could be run? But I don't know that that's proof either way). To me though it makes a lot of sense that it would/could spur a huge event.

__s 9mo ago

Seems like it, & each rank is 30x more energy than the last[1] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probability-earthquake-a-foreshock-a-larger-earthquake https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-probability-earthquake-a-fore... Suggests 5% for larger quake to follow within week. But overall most sources I could find suggested it's hard to know, needs more research 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10wecl8/do_little_earthquakes_prevent_big_earthquakes https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10wecl8/do_litt...

jacquesm 9mo ago

https://www.geo.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/new-study-connects-earthquake-energy-release-strength-rocks-beneath-our-feet https://www.geo.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/new-study-connects-ear...

criddell 9mo ago
https://news.caloes.ca.gov/earthquake-myths-separating-fact-from-fiction/ https://news.caloes.ca.gov/earthquake-myths-separating-fact-... Myth 5 is "Small Earthquakes Relieve Pressure and Prevent Larger Ones"
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  Myth: new knowledge never trumps old knowledge. Check the dates on those two publications.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  GP is correct; I'm not sure why CA gov is calling that a myth (it's not). However keep in mind that it's not necessarily true 100% of the time. Or at least the things it might seem to imply at first glance aren't true - the presence or absence of small quakes in a given period doesn't necessarily tell you anything useful about the future.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    Indeed. But I get why people are confused because it is a subtle difference between 'stress relieved through small earthquakes is stress expended' vs 'stress relieved through small earth quakes is not indicative of the magnitude of future events'. The long term absence of stress relief small quakes on a known fault line might be bad news, or no news at all, statistics are where the difference is here, not in particular events. See also, 'the big one' and various theories around it.
mturmon 9mo ago
I think you intended this to be a validation of the idea that small quakes relieve stress and therefore lower the chance of a large quake. The above link does not answer that question. It is relating stress release to "fault strength", or the maximum shear stress that can be withstood by the fault. There is an incidental relationship with depth that plays a role. The video linked nearby (on criticality) also does not address the question at issue. I'm only replying because I work adjacent to this area, and my understanding is that the idea that small EQ's release stress is a myth. Here [1] is another link, listed as #1 in the "Myths" category. And you can dig up quotes from none other than Lucy Jones [2] saying that this is a myth. I don't work directly in this area, so I'm not willing to say absolutely no. But I'd really like to see a head-on reference supporting the claim that it's not a myth. [1] https://earthquakes.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html https://earthquakes.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Jones

numpad0 9mo ago

This type of argument is kind of logical but not so immediately useful. Earthquakes just happen and no one is involved in that process. There could still be the big one coming, or that one might have been defused by this one. No one knows.