SCIENCE OF EARTHQUAKES REMAINS TRICKY BUSINESS

When it comes to earthquake preparedness, vigilance and common sense don't have to exclude one another. People of the Southeast Missouri-Southern Illinois region, spread over one of the nation's more infamous geological faults, can't ignore seismic realities. Nor, however, should they be governed by them. Earthquake studies made public last week demonstrate just how tricky this business of planetary movements is.

The Seismological Society of America gathered in New Mexico last week and the New Madrid fault zone was a topic of considerable interest. The meeting site was perhaps coincidental to the fact that a famous New Mexican thrust this same fault zone in a more glaring and dubious limelight in 1990. The late Iben Browning, a climatologist from Albuquerque, forecast a even-odds earthquake possibility for early December that year. Amid a certain degree of precaution and a more conspicuous measure of misinformation bred of anxiety, the quake never occurred. Along with Browning's misfire, unfortunately, may have come a distrust of anything seismic and scientific, not to mention an indifference with regard to quake preparation.

Scientists who gathered in Santa Fe for this recent conference had a lot to say about the area close to our hearts; three separate studies focused on the New Madrid fault, including from such bodies as Stanford University, New Mexico State University, the National Geodetic Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey. Among other things, the scientists said a repeat of the giant New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-12 are unlikely to be repeated within centuries. A converse conclusion of this same study is that a (Richter scale) magnitude-6 tremor is likely every 50-100 years. Such a quake could cause significant loss of life in cities such as St. Louis and Memphis. Research done last year, using subterranean explosions to imitate seismic shock waves, further suggest that strong quakes centered near New Madrid could produce serious damage up to 150 miles away.

What conclusions can non-scientists draw from this? Little that common sense hasn't already allowed us. The threat of earthquakes is real in our region, just as the threat of hurricanes is real in south Florida and the threat of blizzards is real in Colorado. Citizens here can make preparations to provide for their survival after an earthquake. Governments can mandate reasonable building codes that protect the populace without stifling businesses with excessive construction costs. The region can't let the possibility of an earthquake rule the lives of all who reside here ... nor can the eyes collectively avert the potential for disaster.

Our inclination is to believe scientists are, little by little, expanding their base of knowledge about earthquakes and the often quirky (and overwhelmingly hazardous) workings of our world. Intellectually, we find it a stretch to believe technology is approaching a threshold for the accurate prediction of earthquakes, though emotionally we might wish that to be so. The more science teaches us about seismic mayhem, the more closely we focus on the fundamental questions that might never be answered: Where and when will an earthquake strike?