The First Practicable Earthquake Prediction Theory In the World

Nature invited both authoritative pessimists and optimists to debate whether or not earthquakes can be predicted from February 25 to April 8, 1999. Its result was gray. Even Wyss, probably the top optimist, admitted, "I am pessimistic about the near future". His frank admission revealed that there was no practicable earthquake prediction theory in the world then. However, I published < Earthquake Clouds, a reliable precursor > in October 1999 [1]. As its 1st Anniversary, I would like to simply review this article, and what happened after it, then to give a perspective on earthquake prediction. First, the paper proposes an earthquake model, an earthquake cloud model, and a time probability calculation of earthquake prediction. All of them are new in the world. Both my earthquake model, and earthquake cloud model rely on abounding earthquake phenomena, laboratory results of rock character, especially vs. water, and heat, earthquake data analysis, and my prediction experiment. The heart of the both models, Dehydration, had been deduced before verified from a book [2] in 1997. During a dehydration period, water escapes as vapor, and the cohesion of a rock drops down sharply, so a large earthquake follows. The both models are reliable not only to explain earthquake phenomena in theory, but also to predict earthquakes in practice. By contrast, the other models do not link to Dehydration, so they are unsuccessful, for example, the Plate Theory can explain neither how earthquakes happen in the inner of a plate, nor why two plates crash does not cause a series of large earthquakes along their boundary simultaneously, but a single for a long lime. Moreover, it does not indicate when, where, and how big an earthquake will emerge in practice. The time probability calculation of earthquake prediction counts on the most basic statistic principle, so it is undebatable. The calculation is easy to understand, and important for evaluating the quality of a prediction. Second, I have developed a new precursor called Geoeruption. It is a sister of Earthquake Clouds, or a daughter of Dehydration. I foresaw its existence, then found it. Like its sister, geoeruption is very useful on earthquake prediction, especially for location. Many people from different countries are attempting to predict earthquakes by the both sisters. Here, I would like to mention Mr. Dengic, a Turkish computer expert, who predicted the 5.0 Caspian Sea earthquake (41.2N, 49.55E) on September 27. By contrast, Russian scientists made a wrong official prediction in the early September, 2000 that there would be a M5~6.5 earthquake in Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula within a week, and I foresaw its fail. In Japan, some scientists announced a "discovery" that their broadcast had been interrupted before the 6.7 Western Honshu earthquake (35.33N, 133.09E) on October 6, 2000. However, it called electromagnetic precursor was not new. Russian published a book about it long time ago, and showed its problems, one of which was that it sometimes worked, and sometimes did not work. If it were an excellent precursor, it would have been discovered during the 7.3 Kobe earthquake in 1995, and many others. The above facts reveal a conflict between the two reliable short term precursors and those long term precursors. On one hand, lacking a reliable theory, seismologists will be unsuccessful on earthquake prediction even though owning budgets. On the other hand, lacking a strong financial support, I can not obtain the data I need. This conflict will interrupt the development of short term earthquake prediction. Finally, my article is both the end of the historic debate, and the start of the earthquake predictable period. There are a lot of works to do as a start. The main work is to make my theory recognized because a successful evacuation is not a personal action, but a social movement. Therefore, it is necessary to have thousands and thousands volunteers to support it. Here, I would like to give my best regard to Lady Curtis, the secretary of the USGS, Pasadena Station. She is persuading her colleagues to help my work. I would like also to give my best regard to Gentlemen Dengic from Turkey, and Takase from Japan. They are propagating my theory, and offering me data and messages about earthquakes. If somebody is also willing to propagate my theory, I would like to offer him or her three solid facts. (1) The 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake cloud on January 1, 1998, about which a meteorologist from UCLA, whose field is special clouds, agreed that is a cloud, but not a weather cloud [3]. (2) Relying on the cloud, I predicted the 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake on February 4, 1998 to both the USGS and the L. A. Times on January 5, 1998 with a time probability 13% of being correct [4]. (3) The 6.6 Iceland geoeruption on April 13, 2000, which indicated two 6.6 earthquakes on June 17, and 21. The both earthquakes have been the largest there since 1912 [5]. Many people requested me to predict earthquakes where they live. I thank them very much for their belief in my work, and hope them to learn from Mr. Dengic i.e. to predict earthquakes themselves. My hope has three senses, one of which is that predicting earthquakes takes much time. Even if someone gives me all data I need, I can not predict all earthquakes in the world. Another reason is that my doctrine is different from seismologists. They look down people, while I look up people. I believe that people can predict earthquakes as well as I do. The last reason is that I need a group of successors, otherwise seismologists will say, "No one can predict earthquakes" again after my death. Since seismologists still addict either agnosticism, or those useless precursors, and my work lacks a budget support, a successful evacuation will be impossible in the near future. People will be killed and injured by large earthquakes continuously. Truth will finally beats error. After more and more people die of earthquakes, seismologists will slowly believe in my theory, and other people will gradually be willing to support my work in action. At that time, maybe long time after my death, my theory will finally rule in the world, and work for people. I believe that time will come, and I am still working hard. Finally, I very thank < Science & Utopy > and its main editor Kiraz Perincek for publishing my paper. They found my theory from far away, and published it later. By contrast, many American seismologists, and editors could not understand my theory. They showed their arrogance although no one of them could explain what the 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake cloud was, and make a prediction as good as mine. I would like to thank my daughter Wenying Shou for her financial support. She is not a millionaire, but a Ph.D. student. I would also like to thank my wife for her finally understanding my work. I also very thank the USGS, Dundee University, UK, and NOAA for data, and Caltech for data and references.

Evidences and References

Shou, Z.H. Earthquake Clouds a reliable precursor. Science & Utopia 64, 53~57 (1999) Kirby, S.H & McCormick, J.W. Inelastic properties of rocks and minerals: strength and rheology. Practical Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals, 179-185 (ed. Carmichael, R.S., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1990). Fig. 1 Image 9801010732.jpg The 6.1 Afghanistan earthquake cloud. Prediction P-980105.gif The 6.1 Afghanistan Earthquake Prediction on January 5, 1998 Fig. 2 Image 2000041300.jpg The 6.6 Iceland Geoeruption.

Home | Introduction | Publication & News | Predictions | New Predictions | Essays | Links | Contact

Sign Our Guestbook View Our Guestbook

Updated: October 15, 2000 | Webmaster