The largest earthquake in Washington state, since white man first came to this region in the late 1700s, occurred on December 14, 1872. This major quake was first noted in this blog last Friday (8-26-16), in relation to the vulnerability of Grand Coulee Dam. There are now some other very important lessons for us of this day to learn. These lessons relate to this major earthquake and how information about it was handled in more recent times. Let us observe something very important. It appears that geologic information can readily be manipulated, especially in this case where the nuclear industry was involved.
A Seattle Times article, linked here, provides some background information relating to this quake. It notes that this "powerful quake...rattled seven states and provinces." According to Brian Sherrod of the USGS, this major earthquake "was felt from Montana and British Columbia down into Oregon and Northern California." Yes, you read that correctly, even into Northern California. So, it is obvious that this was a very large earthquake, especially since it was felt over such a wide area.
A map, linked here, which is from a page linked here, shows the area in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, plus in Canadian provinces, in which this powerful quake was felt the most. To the writer, there is something interesting about this map. Note the general shape of the perimeter of the bluish-colored area. Then note that there is an isolated, bluish-colored area, which is located in the state of Montana. The shape of affected area on this map and the isolated area in Montana tell quite a story to the writer about a more realistic cause for the earthquake of 1872. This issue, about a more realistic cause, will be addressed in a later post. For now, let us get back to how the nuclear industry dealt with information about the 1872 quake, and important lessons we can learn from this.
In the 1970s, there was a push to build nuclear power plants in Washington state. One group had plans for three new reactors at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The other group wanted to build two nuclear power plants "on the Skagit River near Sedro-Woolley." But, there was a major problem. There was that massive earthquake of 1872, which included quite a number of aftershocks. As the article linked here states, "Building a nuclear power plant requires an analysis of the biggest earthquake in the past that might affect the structural capabilities of a plant in the future." In other words, the general public is supposed to be protected during a massive earthquake from a horrific nuclear accident also being included in the event. So, what did the players in the nuclear industry do about this serious problem, as they worked to protect their own interests?
A Seattle Times article, linked here, states that "legions of consultants employed by utilities with nuclear ambitions attempted to pin down the location of the quake." So, how did these "legions of consultants employed by utilities with nuclear ambitions" go about pinning down the location or epicenter of this large 1872 quake? Or, did the nuclear players do something completely different? Was the geologic information simply manipulated in the interests of the parties involved, so, in essence, they could possibly deceive an ignorant or gullible public and get their way?
An informative article found in The Cascadia Courier of Monday, April 18, 2011, which is linked here, is titled 'The Earthquake That Wouldn't Stay Put.' There is a very good reason why this title was given to the article. The various seismic consulting groups for the utility companies, in their so-called "findings," steadily "bounced" the the supposed "location" of the epicenter for the 1872 earthquake back and forth across the Cascade Mountains, even north and south, like a ricocheting ping-pong ball. It appears that each group was working hard to make "their team" the winner, no matter what. Yes, money talks, even in geology.
In The Cascadia Courier article linked in the preceding section, there is an account about a steamboat captain in Olympia, Washington, who was named Lawson. The earthquake felt in Olympia was initiated "with a light movement, [which was] gradually increasing for 18-20 seconds." This piece of information -- the nature of how things were initiated -- may be of value in a later examination of the nature of this quake, plus its actual cause. The account continues: "Then came the heavy shock, lasting four or five seconds; then it gradually decreased. In six minutes after the first shock there was another, followed by two others one minute apart." Once again, this information is valuable and will be examined closer in another post. For now, let us get back to the actions of the nuclear players in the 1970s.
It will be noted in The Cascadia Courier article, linked above, that consultants for one power company would present their "findings," which were naturally in favor of their client. Then the consultant for the opposing power company would counter with "findings" which were favorable to their client. It was almost like a case of "pay the attorney enough money and they will tell the court almost anything which they feel may work in their client's best interest, right or wrong." Read The Cascadia Courier article thoroughly and you may be educated on how "the game" is played, even in geology and even in very serious matters where the public safety is at stake.
Now, it is time to examine what is happening in our present day, in relation to the coming Cascadia mega-quake and its predicted epicenters by the so-called scientific consensus. The story which is given to the general public, via the media, is that the epicenters will be roughly 70 miles offshore at the so-called Cascadia Subduction Zone. But, it should be noted that there are a number of scientists whose investigations indicate that the epicenters will be far inland, much closer to large population centers and more than 110 miles closer to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Unfortunately, the scientists whose research indicates the epicenters will be relatively close to the Interstate-5 freeway corridor, and much closer to Hanford Nuclear Reservation, are not getting very much "press coverage." Instead, they seem to be getting largely ignored. Why is this?
Seeing how "the game" was played in the nuclear power industry, regarding the major quake in 1872, should help toward educating us. Yes, there are important lessons to consider about how the geologic information was handled or manipulated and why. At this point, there are some questions which possibly should be asked. Is there any chance that "the epicenters" noted in the so-called scientific consensus, regarding the coming Cascadia mega-quake, are "conveniently modified" to support or protect the U.S. Department of Energy's desired ambitions at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? Is there a chance that someone does not want the public to understand the actual hazard which the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in all its various units, presents in the event of a massive Cascadia mega-quake?
For further reading:
Current Expectations for a Cascadia Mega-Quake
https://cascadian.neocities.org/cascadiaquake.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment