Redirected to the website and the next Virtual Event and you can learn more of the upcoming Virtual Events as well as showing up on comcast so let me briefly introduce our speakers for tonight. Susan huff lose the Research Seismologist at the Us Geological survey in pasadena. Serving as an editor and contributor for many journals and contributing editor to the magazine and board of directors of the Seismological Society of america as well as a Southern California quake center and the author of five books including henry history here tonight he covers Climate Change and innovation is needed to overcome it. For ten years he wrote about Research Findings with a weekly column and the author of the great quake about the 1964 alaskan earthquake. So now i will turn the screen over to our speakers and enjoy the talk. Thank you. Way to be here. Thank you for being here. Im excited about this even event, living in a Virtual World right now along with everybody else, but it has long been my favorite bookstore and and the title of my book came to me one day and eventually i called henry i had not consciously lift off this book title although its possible was in my subconscious. But i would encourage everybody if you are interested in earthquakes and science books to check out both the great quake and the great quake debate his book is a lot of fun focusing on the 1964 quake in alaska. And thank you to everyone out there tuning in the queer people from a ways away. I know theres a lot going on in the world. We appreciate everybody tuning in and we look forward to q a at the end. But to get the ball rolling i was going to read a couple of pages to start off and then we moved to the conversation between me and henry clemenceau time for q a at the end and then he asked question tab at the bottom of it of the book is going to start reading on page 162 set the stage where i start reading the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake had struck causing quite a bit of damage. Scientists who are trying to make the case for a earthquake hazard in los angeles shows the example that the damage that can occur and Business Leaders were pushing back. And then the earthquake was a teachable moment to make the case but after a few months they started to lose momentum and then to step forward at that point so jumping into the middle of things whatever understandings would had been worked out but the local Business Leaders 1923 comfortably distant in the San Francisco bay area and never signed onto the deal in the words of that historian by the end of 1925 deciding to embark on a new strategy to scare californians not only pointing backward at the seismic distraction by predicting a catastrophic earthquake much larger than the Santa Barbara strike one arkansas california his prediction was based on some extent on the result that came out from the survey. That result in 1923 scientist appointed making the alarmist public statements after specifically cautioned about public statements a new analysis of early data could be an imprecise science that the questions were a preliminary estimate from triangulation measurements not properly connected to the larger triangulation survey scientists have been reluctant with the scientific result the left concern in scientific circles the didnt give a precise prediction as he had written cogently in the article, what time future shocks will occur we do not know especially in any precise way but we do know since 1769, no has one half century has passed with a great earthquake in the region. He was wrong by the way the average point to greater frequency however close prediction of the day or hour or month or year cannot be approximated. He was right about that. The us survey results even opponents scientist faced a dilemma facing present day professionals raising conservative professional circles that was a concern to some extent in that it did not imply any specific time frame or quantifiable statistic. The regional buildup will be from a large earthquake in the Santa Barbara earthquake had not speaking publicly to a limited extent of the buildup of strain before the Santa Barbara earthquake struck that led to what he predicted before 1925 grew he had much more squarely onto the result he told power told readers that a large earthquake in the southland was nine nobody knows it is one year or ten years before severe earthquake comes, but when it does it will come suddenly and those were not prepared will suffer. In the earthquake business a fine line to say enough and to be alarmist and then unfortunate things happen those decisionmakers ignored warnings altogether and the other people my panic we are all doomed whats the point from crying have to often some individuals were more closely than others than the statements he made november 1925 no one knows if it is one year or ten years and now nobody knows that was one year or ten years and 100 the reader can view his words with the benefit of almost a century of hindsight damaging earthquakes to strike the greater l. A. Area putting an end to the debate but also moderately damaging in 1987 and a pair of those that struck the San Fernando Valley in 1971 in 1984. The earthquake that willis and his colleagues warned about rivaling the 19 oh six San Francisco earthquake to not occur within 90 years of 1925. When a scientist oversteps the fine line the media is called on to translate a scientist statement into english and not altogether and the nuanced qualifications they are designed to grab the readers attention with headlines the world soon found their way into the National Media the New York Times for example publishing article entitled professor wilson predicts a tremors l. A. In the vicinity will experience a severe earthquake probably more violent than that of San Francisco 19 oh six between one and ten years. Went on to repeat the world that he stated two years ago the Santa Barbara would the tremors of prophecy held the past summer but the years following the San Francisco earthquake and the great quake debate had at various times flared with public will insulate 1925 that explode exploded. I will leave it to everyone to read more about the debate that played out. Thats actually one part of the debate the weather. With mr. Hill as well. Yes. The book evolve into intertwining biographies. And then ended up on his own side of the vanishing find mine the other was robert hill who landed on the other side and he was a skeptic and he was the crusader and i started to work on the book i was interested in the book itself because there is a couple of different takes you can read about the dont quite agree so i was curious of the real story and i thought i would introduce hill and willis briefly moving on to the debate and the more i got into their lives and realize that fascinating individuals that they were. Theres a lot of things that i liked about the book that you can tell into both of these people equally and no matter the archival material it is remarkable. So we talk about they are both scientist obviously and renowne renowned. They are both very human particularly sure reminds me of a problematic personality that he was more of a, jen and i felt like to feel more empathy for him. He was a problem child and couldnt get out of his own way. He was a pain in the ass. He reminded me a bit of my late father who was an academic ambient and brilliant but didnt always play well with others but with the hill story and what he went through as a child, born nashville tennessee 1858 then as a toddler the civil war literally went to his hometown his parents lost their house. His father lost his life to illness. His mother was confined to a Mental Institution and one memory he had of her was a military teenagers dragging her way and her screaming for her children and from there he made his way to the front here in texas and is just such a compelling life story where he had been through and then he made his way through to Cornell University never getting past ninth grade so he got to cornell to launch his career. But he had a chip on his shoulder. Its interesting. Im just a journalist and i am not aware but is this idea of the debate that went on in the mid twenties in Southern California, is that something if i go to school to become a seismologist, i will learn about that in use this obscure that you latched onto . To say just a journalist. Will not want to play one at the newspaper. I know the top Science Writers they often understand the science. Im sorry what was the question . Rose theres something with this idea of the debate that took place . I wouldnt say Everybody Knows about it but scientist in general does seem to be interested in general as a severe because historians dont care to care so much and i unusual and some of us are interested had come up a little bit to my previous books in the first person to come up with a public prediction in california. If you look back scientist have occasionally been making alarmist statements of the San Andreas Fault is overdue for a major earthquake. Starting in 1925 but then statements in 1969 and they touched on it and i was aware of it and the convention all telling of the great quake debate the fried he row crusading from the production. In the back pocket of business interests. So to become aware of a second version of the debate of the victim to be set up by business interest and twisted his words. I wouldnt say it is well known. And then to figure out what the actual truth was. I find it interesting reading so Bailey Willis if i remember correctly, when the Santa Barbara quake happened it did not deny we really he hadnt. But then to create a rule to be the crusader . I concluded he is inclined to crusade. He didnt shy away from opportunities to step on the stage. I heard he was a very impassioned orator maybe a little bit of a show about. But then 1925, this is how the book project started for me i was researching the earthquake to look back and understand were faulted had been on and what the magnitude was and i realized willis left his papers to the Huntington Library just down the road. So i applied for privileges and was looking into the earthquake and then i realize there is a huge collection of letters immaterial and they started to get interested into the other part of it. But it is very curious with public statements based on the survey we sold that seems to show a lot was pulling up in Southern California making some statements in 1923 then on jun june 28 taking the train down to Santa Barbara he didnt talk about why he was doing consulting in the very next morning the Santa Barbara earthquake strikes. So it developed naturally and he didnt take pains to set the record straight. So just to get a little taste of same, as the great predictor he doesnt seem like the type of guy but you never know. You can see it looking back to realize hello and willis were born right around the same time in the very early days their careers were intertwined they took a road trip together down to texas in 1898. And you can see hence willis was not shying away from the Media Attention there were a couple of times when i actually laughed out loud in archives which is what youre not really supposed to do. But one of them was finding a little newspaper article of the beach mermaid but it was and editorial from the Santa Barbara paper suggesting with the gun used to the Media Attention and with that prediction. But he just cant seem to get out of the own way he was stubborn i am not a big reader of biography but it so interesting because as you say there are a lot of similarities in the book in terms of age and profession, et cetera, et cetera but there are so many differences and to work in the hills background. And then somewhere up in new york state. And willis did lose his father at a young age as a writer or literary celebrity that was idyllic and tell the father fell ill and then that set into motion some hard times. Willis as the youngest and i he hung the moon. That she is the world to him and he grew up with an absolutely doting supportive mother for all intents and purposes so in some ways an absolute study in contrast including the yankee versus the confederate on opposite sides of the civil war. That is an interesting thing about the book that diversity is on peoples minds. Hill sounded like the victim of discrimination, he was white and male of european descent like every other geologist but he was a southerner and from the south among the Northern Agency and intellectual elite. That was a lifelong chip on his shoulder that he felt he was the victim of bias and not entirely wrong. He would see biases behind every little issue that came up and take on a life of the round. But its interesting to think about the fact there were biases against people from the south. Maybe some of those are still open. And when he went to cornell . That was the big deal. You never been north of the masondixon line to have the yankees portrayed as monsters but now all of a sudden he takes a stagecoach and lands in the middle of a snowstorm but he described cornell as a good experience and for the first time in his life he was in a setting where people are interested in science and knowledge. So he lived with the grandmother after his parents moved on and she was extremely strict. There wasnt a lot of encouragement. There were no science books in the house for example. But that part of his life but then he started to run into what he perceived as a bias. And then on the deathbed. You wrote a check in 1928 to cornell i never figured out if he paid them off entirely or not if you think of Student Loans of the modern day issue but it was something that he got to cornell with no money. So working his way through school and borrowing money. To me again what is so interesting is how human these people are and its always great i talked to scientist all the time. So to really get the rich humanities people that is a valuable thing. And your book also is wonderful bringing oscar to lif life. I envy you that it is great and george is very much alive and well. s paper not read henrys boo book, and george is a leading scientist who went up to alaska after the earthquake and sorted out what had happened at a time when a seismologist turned out to be wrong. George is a great guy. He works for the same organization that i do. He is alive and well in the nineties and you got to talk to him. I think it to spend a lot of time with him led on a small boat in alaska and before i wrote the book i didnt know anything about geology maybe a little bit but not very much george was my geology teacher. So lucky for me to have somebody like him describe in alaska it was a great experience. Yes. He was interesting. He doesnt have the chip on his shoulder that hill does. So i think that is what your book does the way i got to know the two people. Obviously were in a different time now with a lot of other earthquakes in the 90 years that the issue of so how should we do this . That is part of your job that just seems in some ways things have not changed although they have obviously. We know so much more than we did in the twenties that was before the plate tectonics revolution which george oscar configured so people really didnt understand of earthquakes they had some sense they were clustered into zones but they didnt understand the boundaries owns. They didnt understand the rate of earthquake or how often they occur on average. So it was here to make a statement of those happening every 50 years. They didnt have a sense how big they were let alone how often they are so geologist dug into the San Andreas Fault to find evidence of past earthquakes. And found that we get an average of current so we know on average how often and those who have gotten bigger and better and then to develop the golden codes when appropriate. So when will the next one be . And that is when we havent made any headway in terms of making a prediction on a short timescale analysands we are all waiting for the southern san andreas to have a big earthquake the southernmost hasnt ruptured since 1690 establish only about geology the 1857 earthquake which was north of los angeles was 150 years ago. So that starts to feel like quite a long time and there is various evidence that there is a lot of strain built up and we wouldnt be surprised, but we still cant say it would be this year or this decade. I include all of an integral part of mexico that is not earthquake friendly country and think how do people live in california . But obviously you come to terms with it just a guess living in new york have a can once every 30 years. But still the issue of as a person who is an expert, how do you warn people but not get them to panic . That is a vanishing fine line that has not gone away. I heard and that is a centrist place but that contributes to the sense of his and the sense of identity we all feel. He said if you will hear, part of living here is being on the edge with the realization something cold hit you at any time. But now i am forgetting again the question as a person whose job is to inform of the risk. That fine line has not gone away. Think it has gotten worse because there has been one been such a weaponization of science now. We have debates but there is a body of knowledge that is established hell and moves both new earthquakes happened in Hazard Mitigation was important so there is a body of knowledge. But if you try to have a nuanced and balanced discuss