Virtual event with susan hough and henry fountain. Before he began i do have some short guidelines. It would like to ask a question for the q a just use ask the question button at the bottom of the screen. Etc questions that seem interesting you can also vote for them and they will make their way to the very top of the list. If youre considering supporting a bookstore by purchasing a copy of, copy of tonight featured book click on the green purchase button directly below the viewers screen. You will be directed to our website where you can complete your purchase. Our next Virtual Event is scheduled for tomorrow august 28 with jon wiener and you can learn more about upcoming Virtual Event on a website as well as by following us on outcast. With that said let me briefly introduce our speakers for tonight. Susan houseman is a Research Seismologist so i bet that at the u. S. Geological survey in pasadena, california. She served as an editor and contributor from many journals and is a contributing editor to time magazine. She has from his short on the board of directors of Seismological Society of america as well as the Southern California earthquake center. She is the author of five books including earthshaking science, what we know and dont know about earthquakes. Joining her tonight is henry fountain. Henry is a writer who covers Climate Change and the innovations that will be needed to overcome it. For ten years he wrote about Research Findings from across the world of science and observatory a weekly column and site science times. He is the author of the great quake debate about the 1964 alaskan earthquake. With that said im going to turn the screen over to her speakers. Enjoy the talk. [laughing] thank you. Great to be here. I want to thank reera and vromans bookstore and henry for being here. Im excited about this event. I live not far from vromans bookstore but im in the Virtual World right now along with everybody else. Its long been my favorite bookstore, and henry has long been one of my favorite reporters. The title of my book sort of came to me one day and i eventually told henry i had not consciously ripped off of his book title, although its possible it was in my subconscious and that bubbled out. But i would encourage everybody who interest in earthquakes and science books deathly check out both the great quake and the the great quake debate, his book is a lot of fun to focus on the 1964 earthquake in alaska. And thank you to everyone out there whose tune in. We have some people from a ways away so thats great. I know theres a lot going on in the world, some good, a lot of it not so good so appreciate everybody tuning in. We look forward to leaving room for q a at the end. To get the ball rolling eyes going to read just a couple of pages for a few minutes to start off, and then well move to a conversation between me and henry, and then leave time for q a at the end. So i guess theres an ask the question to have hopefully at the bottom if you have any questions. So i was going to start if you do have the book by chance, im going to start reading on page 160. So to set the stage, where i start reading in 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake had struck, cause quite a bit of damage, and scientists were trying to make the case for significant earthquake hazard in los angelee damage that occurred, that businesses were pushing out. And then the earthquake was to some extent a teachable moment for scientists to make the case that they lost after a few months they start to lose momentum. Willis stepped forward at that point. Just jumping in, getting in the middle of things. Whatever understanding had been worked out between harry wood and local businesses in Southern California 1923, Bailey Willis comfortably distant and the San Francisco bay area never signed on to the deal. In the words of the story girl henry cash when, by the of 1925 quote, willis decided to embark on a new strategy. He would scare californians by not only pointing backward at the recent seismic to struck and also predicting that a catastrophic earthquake much larger than the Santa Barbara shock would soon strike california. And his prediction was based to some extent on a result that would come out from a survey. After the survey result became known in 1923, scientists avoided making overly alarmist public statements. In addition to having specifically cautioned the public statements, he knew analysis of early data could be imprecise science. The resulting questions were, in fact, preliminary, estimated from triangulation measurements that had not been properly connected to the larger regional triangulation survey. Moreover, scientists would even reluctant to go public with a scientific result the raise concern in scientific circles but did not support a specific forecast let alone a precise prediction. As he himself had written cogently in his 1916 article, or, at what time future shocks will occur we do not know, spatial inning precise way but we do know that since 1769 no half centuries pass without the occurrence of the lease one great earthquake in the region. He was wrong about that by the way. The average points conclusively to greater expectable frequency. However, close prediction of the occurrence of the day or hour, even the month or year cannot be approximated as yet. He was right about that. But the u. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey results even put scientist like would face a a limit that remains similar to present day professionals. On the one in an apparently sound scientific result raise concern with professional circles but on the other there was clearly uncertain to some extent and in any case the result did not apply any suspect the timeframe they did know a regional if it existed would be released eventually in a large earthquake, and that the relatively modest Santa Barbara earthquake had not been that. Willis had spoken publicly to a limited extent about the buildup of strain before the Santa Barbara earthquake struck, and that led to the rule he predicted. Before 1925 due to a close he latched more squarely on to the u. S. Coast survey results. Pointing to the result he told leaders among others in novembee earthquake in Southern California come in the southland was not quote, no windows where it will be when your changes to force severe earthquake comes, but when it does it will come suddenly and those are not prepared will suffer. In the earthquake business that can be vanishing refined line be seen enough get nifty take the hazard sisley and being overly alarmist. Either direction away from that line unfortunately things happen. In one direction they ignore warnings altogether. In other people might and or failed to take action. We are all doomed. Whats the point . Now some individuals look more closely with outlines and others. In the statements he made in november 1925, willis did more than flirt your quote, no one knows whether it will be one year or ten years. In fact, then as now know when you what it would be year for ten years or 100 years. The modern leader can do switch with the benefit of almost a century of hindsight, damaging earthquakes did strike the Greater Los Angeles area including not only the one that with multiple into the great quake debate but also a moderately damaging earthquake in whittier in 1987 and appear larger quake struck the San Fernando Valley in 1971 in 1994. Yet the earthquake that willis and some of his colleagues warned about great earthquake in Southern California did not occur within three years or ten years or 90 years of 1925. When a scientist dances, with oversteps the vanishing find like the media which is always called on to translate scientists statements into actual english invariably are not altogether unreasonably drop do once qualification. Headlines are designed to grab the readers attention with less room for subtlety and the modern twitter tweet. Willis is words soon found a Way International media, the New York Times for example, publish an article titled professional willis says predicts los angeles tremors. Los angeles with a vicinity, the article begins with experience a severe earthquake probably more violent than that in San Francisco in 1906 in one to ten years. The article went on to repeat the lord that willis quote at status of years ago that Santa Barbara we feel severe earth tremors, prophecy that was fulfilled in the past summer. Over the years following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the great quake debate in Southern California had at various times Summer Institute and flared. Yet willis is public words in late 1925, did explode. So i i was going to leave io everyone to read more about the debate that played out. Right. Because actually thats more than half of the debate you read, basically, right . Yeah. Well, so mr. Hill as well, dr. Hill i guess. Yet. The book kind of evolved into intertwined biographies into protagonist. One of them was Bailey Willis who ended up on his own side of that vanishingly fine line and the other was robert hill who landed on the other side. So hill was the skeptic, willis was the crusader. When i started working on the book i was interested in the debate itself because theres a couple of different takes on it you can read about that dont quite agree. I was curious what the real story was. I thought i would introduce hill and willis briefly and then move on to the debate. The more i got into their lies, the more i realize what really fascinating individuals they were. I agree. Theres a lot of things i really like [inaudible] you can delve into both these people equally really. Whatever the archival material you found is really remarkable. They are both scientists obviously and quite renowned scientists, yet they are both very human. Particularly hill reminds you of people i know, sort of a problematic personality. In some ways i feel like maybe because he was more curmudgeon or whatever but i felt like, i sort of felt more empathy for whatever for hill just because he was sort of a problem child. He couldnt get out of his own way. Hill was a pain in the, if i can say that, after my own heart. He reminded me quite a bit of my late father who was an academic and brilliant but didnt always play well with others. But when you got into hills life story and when he went through as a child, he was born in nashville, tennessee, in 1858, and then the next thing we knew still a toddler, the civil war literally rolled through his hometown. His parents lost their house. His father lost his life, not in war, but the illness. His mother was confined to a mental institution, and the one memory he had of her was of a military team dragging her away, and are screaming for her children. From there hills childhood proceeded as as a teenager he e his way to the frontier in texas such a compelling life story, what he went through, and then he made his way and through it all went to cornell university, never having gotten past i forget, ninth grade but maybe before that. So i got to cornell and was able to launch his career. He never left a chip on his shoulder. Its interesting, you are in the business so to speak. Im just a journalist and im not aware of the history, but how big, like is this idea of this debate that went on in the mid20s in Southern California, is that something if i were go to school to become a seismologist i would learn about that . Was this sort of an obscure thing you latched onto . Well, dont say just a journalist. I like to say im not a scientist but i play one in the newspapers, so there you go. I indepth talking to top Science Writers and realize they often understand the science extremely well. So what was the question . So was this something that you kind of latched onto, this idea, this debate took place back then . I wouldnt say that everybody knew about it. Scientists in general dont tend to be interested in history or the history the history of science that kind of an orphan subfield because historians dont tend to care so much about science, and scientists dont tend to care so much about history. Im sort of unusual. Theres some of us who are interested in the history. So i had been aware of it. It had come up a little bit in my previous books, the book on prediction, because Bailey Willis was the first person to come out with a public prediction of earthquake in california. If you look back scientists since 1925 have occasionally been making alarmist statements that the San Andreas Fault or Southern California is overdue for a great earthquake. It started in 1925 but there were others. There were statements in 1969. There was a palmdale famous statement in the 19 city. I touched on it and i was aware of it. The conventional telling of the great quake debate is that Bailey Willis was a flawed hero that was crusading from this production, and Bailey Willis was a quote, tool come into the pocket of business interest and sort of painted as a laughingstock. And eventually over time i became aware that there was a second version of the debate which painted hill as a victim, that hed been set up by business interests who had twisted his words. I wouldnt say its well known among seismologists but i but e aware that there were two very different versions of the story and that got me interested through that with the actual truth was. I i found that really interesting reading about both of them. If i remember correctly, Bailey Willis also, was he in Santa Barbara when the Santa Barbara quake happened . He didnt deny he predicted that earthquake where, in fact, he really had not, right . That played a role in him being a crusader type or whatever . I conclude he was sort of inclined to crusade. He didnt shy away from opportunities to step on to the stage. Ive heard he was a very impassioned and effective order, for example, in his speeches but maybe a little bit of a showboat but very effective at it. Then in 1925, this was sort of how the book project started for me, i was researching the 1925 earthquake to understand better what fault itd been on and with the magnitude was. I realize willis had left his papers to the Huntington Library which is just down the road from me. I applied for reader privileges and was looking into the earthquake, and then i realized theres this huge collection of letters that he wrote and of the material. I started to get interested in the other part of it. It is very curious. He had made public statements based on this survey result that seem to show a lot of steam was building up in Southern California. He made some limited public statements in 1923. And then on june 28 he and one of his sons took the train down to Santa Barbara. He didnt talk in his letters about why he was doing some sort of consulting, and the very next morning the Santa Barbara earthquake strikes. So the lore developed very naturally that he predicted it, and he didnt take teams to set the record straight. Im just wondering if a little taste of fame at that point or as the great predictor and that sort of influenced him down the road. Who knows . He doesnt seem like the type of guy necessary would be influenced but you never know. I did think, you could see looking back, it was fascinating in the book to look back, hill and was were born by direct same time. They both start at the usgs around the same time, very early days. The careers were in a 20 they took a road trip together down to texas in 1898. You could see him, that willis was shying away from Media Attention. There were a couple times in my research actually laughed out loud in our cuts come which is something you really not supposed to do. Archives are very quiet places. But one of them was finding a little newspaper article that willis had saved i was just hysterical. Its the beach mermaid, but it was a little editorial, a letter in the Santa Barbara paper that was suggesting that willis had gotten used to the Media Attention and that had driven the prediction. Meanwhile, hill is kind of fuming [inaudible] holds grudges, just cant seem to get out of his own way. He was a sort of stubborn as well as was smooth and charming to some degree or whatever. Its interesting, im not a big reader of biographies but and certainly i dont know ive ever read dual biography which usually what this is, but as you say theres a lot of similarities to them in terms of their age and their profession, et cetera, et cetera. But there are so many differences. Nature versus nurture type of person you could have a field day looking at hills background as you described growing up in the civil war verse as well as who had relatively easy time summer at the new york state i believe, right . Willis did lose his father at a young age and so his father had been a renowned writer, literary celebrity. The house can fill it in a Country Estate that was really idyllic until the father noel felt ill. But willis his mother have a a number of kids but willis was the youngest. His mother thought he hung the moon. She was the world to him and the think vice versa so he grew up with an absolutely doting, supported mother whereas hill grew up for all intents and purposes and orphan. So they were in some ways just an absolute study in contrast, including the yankee versus the confederate. They were on opposite sides