Re: Japanese papers reveal huge quake

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Skywise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Gerard Fryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:gerard-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> <Snipola>
> > What is new is the additional analysis. The BBC picked up on the latest 
> > issue of JGR (probably prompted by a press release) which has an article 
> > by Satake, Kelin Wang, and Brian Atwater. The paper is an attempt to 
> > work out rupture dimensions and moment, guided by the shoreline 
> > geological evidence (Atwater), the GPS and plate locking evidence 
> > (Wang), and computer modeling (Satake).
> > 
> > True, the determination that there was a giant earthquake on Jan 26 1700 
> > is not news, but there were plenty of sceptics (including me) waiting 
> > for stronger evidence. The new compilation further justifies the giant 
> > earthquake hypothesis, and imposes valuable constraints on what the 
> > event was really like. This follow-up work was essential, and this paper 
> > will not be the end of it--the earthquake hazard assessment for the 
> > Pacific Northwest deserves no less.
> 
> New analysis? That's good. But the BBC article didn't mention
> anything about NEW data. I just went back and re-read it to
> make sure I didn't overlook something. I saw nothing that
> was NEW news to me.

Yup. I agree the Beeb's story left a lot to be desired.

The way publication seems to go these days is that glamorous stories 
based on just the minimum of information appear in Science or Nature, 
then, several years later, the more detailed confirmation appears. The 
Beeb should have said that this was the confirmation.