Processing Risk and Uncertainty

Koi Surfacing, Japanese Gardens, Washington Park Arboreteum, Seattle, Washington

In my last blog posting I discussed the question of how we integrate our feelings, our sensations, perceptions with scales we use to measure risk. My discussion centered around the Japan 9.0 Earthquake and the moment magnitude scale used to measure it.

In fact, the earthquake was originally judged to be an 8.9 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and subsequently upgraded to 9.0 by the USGS. The moment magnitude scale, being logarithmic, meant that this reassessment implied a 41% more intense earthquake than the original 8.9. This reflects logarithmic scales in action.

As the disaster unfolded, the world could see the Japanese heroically struggling with a trifecta of horrors -- the initial earthquake itself, the tsunami that followed, and the accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Fukushima Daiichi) in Fukushima, Japan.

News coverage of the Japan disaster was continuous in the media. However, with military intervention in Libya by a group of nations including the Canada, France, Italty, United Kingdom and the United States, the coverage of the Japan disaster on television has diminished.

How do we respond when events are at the forefront of the news? How do we respond when they are forced by circumstance to share the spotlight with other compelling, competing issues or even tucked away out of sight? How do we respond with our feelings towards others in their disaster, or triumph, and how do we translate those feelings into our own forward seeking risk assessments?

Indeed, there are compelling issues on the horizon, decisions to be made, and the evolving situation in Japan is certain to be a part of the equation in attempting to balance risks in managing our future with respect to energy, focus and other issues.


American Red Cross Donations

Log in the Surf - 8.9 Japan Earthquake (9.0 updated)

Log in the Surf, Westport, Washington, November 6, 2009 as waves pound Westport, Washington causing flooding. (Flickr.com - Marilyn Dunstan)

The USGS updated the magnitude of the earthquake to 9.0 on March 14, 2011

The above picture, captured in Westport, Washington, as waves pounded the shore and caused flooding downtown, doesn’t come anywhere near to doing justice to the devastation in Japan after the 8.9 earthquake. The log, as small as it seems in the distance of the breaking wave, however, serves as a metaphor, as it seems to come out of nowhere, to be crashed with great force upon the shore. To the beach goer these logs represent unseen risk until they emerge from the seas of possibility and are thrust upon the beach.

I watched the enfolding news on CNN of the magnitude 8.9 earthquake off the east coat of Honshu, Japan. The earthquake, which occurred at 05:46:23 UTC on March 11, 2011, has been devastating for the Japanese people. The earthquake, the tsunami that followed, the tragic loss of life and injury, the damage to structures (including nuclear power plants) and communities has had a devastating impact.

Due to the scope of the event, and its aftermath, which is still unfolding, it will take some time to assess the full extent of the damage. As of this writing, there is worry about a possible nuclear plant meltdown (Voice of America article).

My thoughts go out to the Japanese people, and others impacted, with the hopes that aid can help reach those in need and aid in the rebuilding.

How do you fathom such a devastating event with such a magnitude? How do you measure an event such as this, perceive and integrate it on all levels?

Earthquakes are measured by scales. The Richter scale was commonly used to measure earthquake magnitudes. However the Moment Magnitude Scale is the preferred magnitude used by the United States Geological Society (USGS), as explained in the USGS link. The scales used to measure earthquakes are base 10 logarithmic scales.

The Moment Magnitude Scales of two earthquakes can be used to compare their relative intensities, as indicated in the Wikipedia article. It involves solving for the scalar moment, determining the ratio of scalar moments being considered, and boiling down the resulting equation. For two earthquakes with moment magnitude scales M1 and M2 this relative intensity boils down to 10^(1.5*(M1-M2)).

This formula shows how the relative factor between earthquakes remains the same for the same differences in Moment Magnitude, regardless of whether you are referring to differences between 5 and 5.1 or 7 and 7.1. In either case, the earthquake will be 1.4 times as intense as the earthquake you are comparing with. Similarly a 6.0 earthquake will be 31.6 times as intense as a 5.0 earthquake and an 8.0 earthquake will be 31.6 times as intense as a 7.0 earthquake. A 7.0 earthquake will be one-thousand times as intense as a 5.0 earthquake and a 9.0 earthquake will be one-million times as intense as a 5.0 earthquake.

With geometric progression the intensity curve explodes upwards at higher end magnitudes as the factor is applied to larger an larger numbers.

How do we incorporate our feelings, our sensations, our perceptions associated the an earthquake, and associated events, and how do we integrate those perceptions with the scale used to measure them? Our brains have to build some type of association, a risk measurement that links this experience together.

This is an important question as we deal with forward pointing risk assessment and risk management, as we use our minds to project both risk and opportunity.

Risk

Fishing Boat off Cape Arago, Oregon (barely visible at right)

In all manner of things, large and small, we weigh our risks. Do we bring our umbrella with us to the theater or walk in the light rain? Do we take the first parking space or try to find a closer one and risk losing our space? We process these types of risk/benefit decisions continually as these everyday decisions are thrown at us in the course of our lives. The relative weight we give these outcomes changes over time and by circumstance. For example, if we are fighting off a cold we may be more apt to bring the umbrella.

Larger risks represent greater challenges. The stakes are higher, more is on the line and the effect of the risk may be more difficult to quantify. In the image shown of the fishing boat off Cape Arago in rough weather, there are potential risks involving life and property with deteriorating conditions. The sturdiness of the vessel, condition of its engine and electronics and human elements all have impacts on the risk equation as do the emerging weather and sea conditions.

Major geological events present even greater risks, with very low probabilities of occurrence and severe loss potential. Haiti's 2010, 7.0 earthquake represents the actual realization of earthquake risk, expressed in its full and devastating horror. Before the 7.0 earthquake, there was earthquake potentiality. Afterward, there has been pain, loss and devastation, as the world continues to watch the situation unfold.

It has been heartening to see the global response, coming to the aid of Haiti. The World's hopes and wishes are with the people of Haiti and those providing relief. The Help for Haiti icon directs the reader to the White House site for Haiti Earthquake Relief.