February 14, 2014

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

For Valentine’s Day: Love can move Mountains (sort of)

January 11, 1996 a single seismograph of the Geological Survey of Canada buried in a quiet wooded area on central Vancouver Island started to record an unusual strong seismic signal – slowly, but perpetually increasing in amplitude over time it was recorded only at this station – nearby station (located within a radius of 20km) [...]

By David Bressan

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

January 11, 1996 a single seismograph of the Geological Survey of Canada buried in a quiet wooded area on central Vancouver Island started to record an unusual strong seismic signal - slowly, but perpetually increasing in amplitude over time it was recorded only at this station - nearby station (located within a radius of 20km) didn´t show any movements - this was no ordinary 6.8 magnitude earthquake as could occur along the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

Fig.1. Seismogram showing a segment of the unusual seismic signal (from CASSIDY & WHITFORD 1996 - copyright for it is most likely owned by either the author or publisher, it is believed that the use of low-resolution images for discussion and education purpose qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law).

After one-half hour there was a sudden increase in intensity of the signal. The geologists at the Pacific Geoscience Centre in Sidney, 125 km distant of the seismograph position and monitoring the unusual signal, decided to call the police and a nearby a public school to check the situation.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Meanwhile the signal amplitude continued to increase - and an ever increasing number of puzzled technicians and scientist gathered around the monitoring equipment at the Geoscience Centre. At 4:28 PM - 43 minutes after the unusual recording was first noted - the signal suddenly stopped.

Later it was confirmed that it was exactly at 4:28 PM that the police officers and the school staff arrived at the seismograph site, where they found a young couple, trembling in passion and the source of the recorded Love Waves and supposed man-made quake...

Bibliography:

CASSIDY, J.F. & WHITFORD, A. (1996): Unusual "Love Waves" Recorded Above the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Seismological Research Letters. Vol. 67(6): 49-51

My name is David Bressan and I'm a freelance geologist working mainly in the Austroalpine crystalline rocks and the South Alpine Palaeozoic and Mesozoic cover-sediments in the Eastern Alps. I graduated with a project on Rock Glaciers dynamics and hydrology, this phase left a special interest for quaternary deposits and modern glacial environments. During my research on glaciers, studying old maps, photography and reports on the former extent of these features, I became interested in history, especially the development of geomorphologic and geological concepts by naturalists and geologists. Living in one of the key area for the history of geology, I combine field trips with the historic research done in these regions, accompanied by historic maps and depictions. I discuss broadly also general geological concepts, especially in glaciology, seismology, volcanology, palaeontology and the relationship of society and geology.

More by David Bressan

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe