Earthquakes: Witness to Disaster

Earthquakes: Witness to Disaster    National Geographic      2009

This book opens with a fantastic presentation of the 1964 earthquake and tsunami that features dramatic photos and eyewitness testimony. These elements are put together in a way that lends a sense of immediacy and urgency to the narrative.

The following chapter starts with a treatment of early beliefs about the causes of earthquakes, and then extends into a presentation of earthquake science.

The next chapter presents famous earthquakes throughout history.

All of the above is presented in an attractive and informative format that is accessible and informative. Additionally, on a local note, you get two eyewitness accounts of the 89 SF earthquake – one from a driver on the Bay Bridge, and the other from the Goodyear Blimp pilot who was covering the World Series game at the time of the quake. (p38)

I like this book for the above reasons, and I think it can be a valuable resource.

However, I must take umbrage with this book on one important point. There is a chapter titled “Predicting and Preparing For Earthquakes”. Do notice the word order and emphasis in this title. It simply overstates, overreaches, and over sells in its claims.

The fact remains that we can not predict earthquakes.

The chapter starts with detailing cues that can be used to “predict” earthquakes, and it goes on to state this case in detail for several pages before getting around to quoting an actual seismologist -  “No one knows if we ever will be able to consistently predict eathquakes.”  It is only after this that the book talks about how to minimize the death and destruction caused by earthquakes. The quasi-fanciful takes precedence over the concrete and practical in this chapter.

This is simply shoddy, and indicative of the sensationalism that often pervades the presentation of scientific topics in books aimed at an elementary audience. By no means is this type of presentation limited to this age group or format. A cursory glance at the way science topics are often covered in the news media will readily confirm this.

We must remain vigilant. National Geographic is a trusted and venerable source, yet even they are susceptable to emphasizing the sensational over the scientific. In short, we must evaluate our sources critically, and not have blind faith in a particular publisher or name.