I’m not sure what your question is, because it is very general, but I will try to answer:

Although seismologists have not yet found a way to predict earthquakes, we are able to produce earthquake hazard maps that show our best estimates of the chances that damaging earthquake vibrations will occur at a given location during a given period of time.

This type of information can be used as input for the design and construction of buildings and for public policy decisions about earthquake risk. Science and technology can be used to develop ways to design and construct buildings that are safer and less likely to be damaged by earthquakes. The better we can understand the cause of earthquakes and the nature of ground motion generated by those earthquakes, the better we will be able to provide the necessary information to estimate (and plan for) the earthquake risk in a given region.

Also, science and technology can be used to develop ways to reduce death and suffering due to earthquakes. A good place to read about what scientists (and others) are doing to mitigate the tragic effects of earthquakes is GeoHazards International, an agency devoted to reducing death and suffering due to earthquakes and other natural hazards, which can be found here -

http://www.geohaz.org

Hope this helps.

- Alan Kafka

For those of us who try in some way to “predict” earthquakes, the reality is never as clean or neat as the theory. I would be very surprised if a student ever issued a prediction that was so specific that there was no question that the prediction was fulfilled. For example, assume a student says, “I predict that there will be a magnitude 7 earthquake in South America tomorrow.” When tomorrow comes, there is a magnitude 7.9 earthquake off the south coast of Chile. Did the student predict this earthquake or not? In some sense he/she did, but in another sense maybe not. Is a 7.9 event really a “magnitude 7″ earthquake? Also, South America is so big and has so many earthquakes that it probably averages a couple magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes each year. This means that one probably has a .5% to 1% chance just by random luck of making a correct prediction like the one above.

I would expect that the vagueness of any superficially successful “prediction” would temper the student’s celebration when that vagueness is pointed out to him/her.

I agree with the others that as long as teachers are aware of the need to balance the excitement of using science to forecast future events with reality of the destructive power of earthquakes. I think it is valuable for students to learn about that balance.

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I have certainly have had that experience that the earthquake prediction exercises we do tend to result in the teachers and students having a greater appreciation for uncertainty in science. This is probably a very good thing. The world that our students will inherit does not lend itself to simple “yes or no”, “black and white” answers to the questions they will have to deal with.

And yet, it is also true that science can do a great job of predicting many things, such as: most future earthquakes will occur near plate boundaries, more earthquakes will occur in California than in Massachusetts, and a lot more predictions that are sure to be accurate…

So, if we are helping students to understand both power of science and the limitations of science, that is probably a valuable contribution.

Thanks for your comments.

In the final analysis, I think you are right. It is better for the students to be aware of what’s going on in natural Earth processes, and to therefore be informed citizens (and maybe as future Earth scientists help to make the world safer from natural hazards). Yes, that does seem like a noble part of our efforts.

Still, I do think it’s worth reminding ourselves of the aspect of earthquakes that most non-seismologists see when they hear about large earthquakes: the human tragedy. I suspect that my experiences with the great Sumatra quake had an effect on me in this regard. It was clearly the most-exciting time for me to be a seismologist – a thrilling few months when being a seismologist was the coolest thing around! But, during the thrill of it all, I’m not sure that I was always as conscious as I should have been of the devastation and human tragedy that the quake and tsunami caused. And, the AS1 seismograms were fantastic!

Anyway, yes I think you make some excellent points about the noble aspects of devoting ourselves to educational seismology.

You might check out these to activities at http://www.iris.edu/joomla/ Then select Educational Resources at the bottom…
1) EQ Lite: Developing arguments about EQ occurrence
2) Exploring EQ occurrence data