EARTHQUAKE READINESS IS THE SUREST KNOWLEDGE

In Southern California, where geological science sometimes rises to higher elevations of conversational interest, the numbers are being juggled. Seismologists are convinced that probabilities previously reported for the so-called Big One no longer suffice. Two recent earthquakes have jarred their confidence in earlier calculations. We can't decry the scholarly pursuit of seismic researchers, those using accepted scientific means to add to the knowledge base of our often unstable planet, but we must also avow a confidence in preparation where prediction frequently gets the attention.

As Southeast Missourians, whose community straddles the far-reaching New Madrid Fault, we are alert to earthquake talk of any variety. As survivors of Iben Browning's poorly aimed but broadly discussed prognostication for December 1990, we are also likely to be jaded in evaluating such prophesy. What living on the fault line does is provide people of this region a belief in the inevitability of some seismic action, but create an enduring dubiety about the exact time for such an occurrence.

Two June earthquakes in California left scientists and emergency officials doubtful about existing calculations. A 1988 study by the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that the southern San Andreas Fault stood a 60 percent chance of producing the Big One (a quake measuring 7.5 to 8 or more on the Richter scale). Seismologists now say the probability of a large, damaging quake has increased because of the pair of June jolts. It was announced last week that a team of 12 scientists from universities and various agencies has been assigned to refigure the numbers.

What does this mean for Southeast Missouri? The pool of knowledge grows, and more about the Earth's geological stirrings is being revealed. Still, little of this pays the dividend of simple familiarity with rules of protection from falling objects and sustaining oneself when normal patterns of life have been disrupted.

No earthquake has been scientifically predicted. Perhaps one will be someday. Science takes its methodical time with such things. Nuclear fission wasn't achieved in a laboratory until one day it was: begrudging researchers for what they don't know is to deny them a vocation. Unless fiscally unreasonable, their work remains necessary and desired. Yet those living in earthquake-prone regions can't depend on numbers and forecasts to either comfort or alarm them. People need to understand that preparation (remember your quake kits and safety rules?) can sustain them if this harrowing event occurs, while scientific predictions can't.