Earthquake numbers deflected to prioritize budgets over science

This is the last in a series of survey reports from Chunichi Shimbun on how to manipulate Nankai Trough earthquake probability figures for a government expert team report released in February 2018.

When a government committee of earthquake forecasters reviewed the probability of a Nankai earthquake scenario from “about 70 percent” to “between 70 and 80 percent” in February 2018, some indicated that the number was overrated. Minutes from previous meetings in 2012 and 2013, obtained by Chunichi Shimbun, revealed that the number was criticized as “unscientific” at the time.

Seismologists considered that the probability was not fairly presented and called for release not only the highest number but also the low.

But they were quickly held back by their arguments in the area of ​​disaster prevention, whose first meeting minutes showed that they did not hide their desire to prioritize securing their budgets to respect science.

This was reflected in the way the two numbers were presented to the public.

During the joint sessions of the commission in December 2012 and February 2013, seismologists and disaster prevention experts clashed over whether the low number of the Nankai scenario should be mentioned in the “main text” or summary of the government report.

In the draft version, there was no mention of the fact that a predictable time model – measuring land movements from previous earthquakes that took place in Morozso port, northwestern Cape Moroto in Kochi Prefecture – was applicable only to the Nankai scenario, and this model application used for all Other earthquakes will reduce the probability to about 20 percent.

Although the lowest figure was mentioned briefly in the report, it was buried below, a site that could raise criticism that the committee was intending to conceal it.

It was also risky for seismologists. The mere mention of a possibility derived from the predictable time model, which lacks widespread support, would also damage the credibility of seismologists.

Options

Yasuhiro Yoshida, an official in the Ministry of Education, proposed four options: 1) Do not disclose any potential figures; 2) The disclosure of the figure is only 20 per cent because it is the most scientifically accurate available at the present time; 3) Disclosing the 20 percent figure and the expected time number; 4) Disclose both numbers, but put one mark with an asterisk to indicate that it is more official than the other.

But disaster prevention experts dropped all four proposals during a joint committee meeting at the end of 2012.

A few months later, in February 2013, another committee meeting took place, during which bureaucrats came up with four new options on how to present the summary: 1) Provide high and low numbers. 2) To suggest a high number as a main possibility and add a low number as a reference; 3) Delete the low number (which was the initial idea); 4) Lower the high number as a reference and delete the low number.

Bureaucrats indicated that Option 3 was the option that seismologists wanted to avoid more because it “represented a major problem from a scientific point of view.”

But this was the choice they made.

The minutes, which did not indicate exactly who made the comments, showed that members were initially inclined to include both numbers, high and low.

The headquarters for Promote Seismic Research, headed by the Minister of Education, are dedicated around 8 billion yen to calculate probability numbers for 30 years for earthquakes across the country and create maps to reflect them. | KYODO

“It won’t be a big deal, providing both numbers. (Depending on calculation methods) The numbers can be very high and very low. We can ask (governments) to take (disaster prevention) actions on the basis of the higher number,” said one of the committee members. .

“ If we stick to the (high probability) model for predicting time, we may lose focus on what we should do and what direction we are going to be. (Policies) may move away from the direction of future research and science. (Low member) definitely must be revealed, ” said another member.

There is no doubt that journalists will question this. Another said: We cannot hide the low number.

Those who support Option 3 were definitely a minority. But one member strongly pushed for this, arguing that it was important to secure the budget first, and change the course of the discussion.

Then another member endorsed the idea.

“What happens if new research comes up in the near future that requires us to recalculate the numbers. It would cause confusion among the audience. I’m not sure if we want to give the impression that the number will suddenly drop to 10 to 20 percent. I want the scientists to do more from research ”.

In any meeting, those who speak out loud can influence the course of the discussion even if they are small in number. For me, from reading the record, that seems to be what happened.

Buying time

One of the members said: “People will be surprised if we suddenly release this (low number) as an official report.”

“It might be better to inform reporters the next time and have them report it first as the latest seismologist, lay the foundation. Another person said that to buy time until then, the answer may be option 3.

If we choose option 3, I am afraid people will not look at other necessary information. Another said: “ I have torn in two halves.

One member was reluctant to put the number 20 percent anywhere in the report.

“I am fine with option 3, but if we put (low number) in the report, it will give the impression that the probability will decrease by this much. The member said you should realize that this will become the headline.

That note was the last nail in the coffin. The member who appeared to be the moderator ended the discussion.

The member said: “With today’s heated discussion, please note that in the record we saw at this point that Option 3 was the most appropriate of the four proposals.”

This is how the bottom number proposed by seismologists and discussions about the proposal completely disappeared from the summary.

There are two reasons why I thought it was important to disclose the record.

One of these reasons is that official forecasts – which indicate a 70 to 80 percent probability of an earthquake in the Nankai Basin in the next 30 years – are mentioned in the report as if scientifically proven, when seismologists actually argued that they were “raising problems Scientific . “

I am not trying to reduce the risks of the scenario, nor am I saying that governments should not prepare for that. It is true that the Nankai earthquake could cause extensive damage to infrastructure in central Japan. But if the authorities only use selective methods to infuse countermeasures, then this is a problem.

It goes without saying that the basic data used to shape the nation’s politics must be based on science. The fact that the authorities manipulated the data to secure a budget and other unscientific reasons is a betrayal of the public and science.

Hide documents

Another reason is the government’s reluctance to disclose public documents or committee discussion records.

The Ministry of Education did not reveal all the records at the beginning. A responsible official initially said that certain records could not be disclosed because they do not exist. These were the minutes that included horrific comments like “We should give priority (to disaster prevention measures) in allocating taxpayers’ money” and “First of all, we need to secure the budget”, resulting in an impressive 80 percent showing In the summary.

I learned of the existence of the minutes after finding the comments in a pile of other minutes that alluded to such statements by chance.

“There was a very sensitive discussion. Was it deleted from the record because it would be considered pressure on the Seismic Research Committee?” Asked one member according to the record.

“It will not be revealed if it has a major impact on society. The bureaucrat replied:” If there is a request for disclosure, we will release them. “

Taking note of the minutes approved by the Ministry at the committee meeting for disclosure, I asked the Ministry of Education once again to release all the records.

Because of the deliberations in the ministry, the minutes were revealed more than a month later. They were partly blacked out, and the reason was amazing.

The ministry replied in writing, “If this information becomes public, the government and municipalities will inundate phone calls from the public and the media, making it difficult for them to do their administrative work properly.”

If this kind of logic is tolerated, it certainly means that governments and municipalities do not have to disclose any information if they do not want to.

In recent years, the government has covered facts that it considered a negative reflection of. The Ministry of Defense concealed a daily record written by Ground Self-Defense Forces personnel on the security situation on the ground in Iraq, while the Ministry of Finance audited documents related to the purchase of the national school worker Moritomo Jacquin as a deduction for state land for a new school. Recently, government officials have torn up documents containing the guest list of a state-funded cherry blossom viewing ceremony hosted by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on the same day he was asked, sparking accusations that they did this on purpose.

If ministries try to hide public documents, the public will lose faith in them. The same applies to the headquarters to promote earthquake research.

Japan has long relied heavily on earthquake forecasts, and has minted money and other disaster prevention resources in the Tokai region. After the Great Hanshin earthquake in 1995, the headquarters to promote earthquake research were established on the premise that policies formed on the basis of earthquake prediction were unsuccessful.

Nobody knows when and where the earthquake might hit. If the authorities continue to focus on the Nankai Trough scenario and increase their risks, the lessons learned from the 1995 Hanshin earthquake will cease to exist.

Promote “low risk” areas

In fact, it does cause negative effects. Before the major earthquakes in Kumamoto Prefecture in 2016 and Hokkaido in 2018, provincial municipalities were infuriating companies, saying that the regional earthquake risk was lower than in the places where the Nankai earthquake was expected to hit.

The two provinces suspended their campaigns after the earthquakes, but many municipalities are still trying to sell themselves as places of low disaster risk.

About 8 billion yen of state funds are allocated each year to headquarters to promote earthquake research. Its two main functions are to compute 30-year probability numbers for earthquakes across the country and create maps that reflect them.

But in recent years, earthquakes have hit places where the map has shown their probability is low, causing damage.

Every time I go to disaster areas to report, survivors say this was unexpected and they weren’t ready, believing that the Nankai Basin is the place to hit the next big bottom. If the government and seismologists do not reveal accurate information, this “misunderstanding” will continue, causing more damage.

Everyone dreams of predicting where the next earthquake will strike and concentrating limited money and resources there to reduce risk. But for the time being, it is impossible to accurately predict this.

The key may not be predicting the future but providing the place where previous earthquakes struck, thus giving the impression that it can happen anywhere. The first step is to review the methods used to calculate the probability of a Nankai earthquake in 30 years as quickly as possible.

Keiichi Ozawa received the Science Journalist Award, presented by the Japan Association of Science and Technology Journalists in June, for the series that was published between October and December 2019.

.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos