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.
