3 ms·

I had a physics professor whose day job was geophysics. We were discussing earthquakes, and he said he really wanted to investigate the possibility of eliminati

I had a physics professor whose day job was geophysics. We were discussing earthquakes, and he said he really wanted to investigate the possibility of eliminating the threat from the San Andreas fault by intentionally triggering it at some regular interval, before the opposing forces built up to dangerous levels. He was onto something!

kenneth 8y ago
Yes, precisely. The problem is what to do with all the currently built up energy. We know that a big one is coming, we don't know when. Before we can implement the program for slow steady release of energy, we will have to suffer through one big one. Fukushima is in a better place today in that it's past the big one, and could try to release energy slowly. Regardless, it'll never happen in the USA, given the anti-science political climate. Remember when they were about to launch the CERN LHC and everyone freaked out about "they're going to create black holes and kill us all!?" Now imagine California soccer moms and their Facebook groups spreading misinformation about "they're triggering earthquakes and will kill us all (and also vaccines cause autism!)" …
- Scramblejams 8y ago
  Heh, yeah. Same as the backlash to proposals for geoengineering our planet’s temperature and atmospheric composition. The way I see it, if we expect to inhabit this place for the next several hundred thousand years, we’ll either 100% have to have that ability, or instead be satisfied riding our Hobbyhorse of Environmental Virtuousness right into extinction or evacuation as whatever meager efforts we make are swamped by natural variations. Might as well start doing the science now. Back to earthquakes though. Somewhere in HN there’s a comment on a story about the Cascadia subduction zone suggesting that we publicly select a date some many years in the future on which we’ll get everyone to a safe place, then pop that fault with a bunch of buried nukes. Would make some great TV!
Animats 8y ago
That was considered in the 1970s.[1] Generally considered to be a really bad idea. [1] https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full...
- istjohn 8y ago
  Unfortunately, your article doesn't explain why the idea isn't taken more seriously.

kenneth 8y ago

Yes, precisely. The problem is what to do with all the currently built up energy. We know that a big one is coming, we don't know when. Before we can implement the program for slow steady release of energy, we will have to suffer through one big one. Fukushima is in a better place today in that it's past the big one, and could try to release energy slowly. Regardless, it'll never happen in the USA, given the anti-science political climate. Remember when they were about to launch the CERN LHC and everyone freaked out about "they're going to create black holes and kill us all!?" Now imagine California soccer moms and their Facebook groups spreading misinformation about "they're triggering earthquakes and will kill us all (and also vaccines cause autism!)" …

Scramblejams 8y ago
Heh, yeah. Same as the backlash to proposals for geoengineering our planet’s temperature and atmospheric composition. The way I see it, if we expect to inhabit this place for the next several hundred thousand years, we’ll either 100% have to have that ability, or instead be satisfied riding our Hobbyhorse of Environmental Virtuousness right into extinction or evacuation as whatever meager efforts we make are swamped by natural variations. Might as well start doing the science now. Back to earthquakes though. Somewhere in HN there’s a comment on a story about the Cascadia subduction zone suggesting that we publicly select a date some many years in the future on which we’ll get everyone to a safe place, then pop that fault with a bunch of buried nukes. Would make some great TV!

Animats 8y ago

That was considered in the 1970s.[1] Generally considered to be a really bad idea. [1] https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.2036/full...

istjohn 8y ago
Unfortunately, your article doesn't explain why the idea isn't taken more seriously.