New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Crustal Chemistry May Aid in Earthquake Prediction

Researchers say chemical changes in groundwater may someday be used to predict quakes four to six months in advance. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Today's early warning systems for earthquakes give you at most a few minutes to prepare for the hit. That's because today's systems rely on detecting the first early rumbles of an actual earthquake before sending the alarm. 

Now researchers say that following the chemistry of groundwater could sound a long-term quake alarm. They tracked samples from an artesian well in Iceland for five years and identified changes in the ratios of hydrogen isotopes and a spike in sodium levels, four to six months before two 5+ magnitude quakes. 

The chemical clues suggest mixing between groundwaters—so the researchers deduce that rocks may be fracturing, linking up underground aquifers, before the quake. The results are in the journal Nature Geoscience. [Alasdair Skelton et al: Changes in groundwater chemistry before two consecutive earthquakes in Iceland]

Investigations like this one have been plodding along for 40 years, and some studies—like one following the deadly Kobe quake in 1995—have found similar correlations. But study author Alasdair Skelton, a professor of geochemistry at Stockholm University, says the unpredictable study subject makes it tough to get funding, "because you can in no way guarantee a result. So I get three years of money but if there's no earthquake, there's no result."

And even if we do accumulate more results like this and researchers sound a six-month alarm, what next? "If we're gonna ever predict earthquakes, we want something sort of intermediate term. Not years, and not minutes or days. So weeks or months is probably the most useful time scale—but the sheer practicality of it, what you do about it, I'm thankful I'm not the person who has to resolve that." Judging by the way leaders have responded to scientists' warnings about another issue (cough cough, climate change), we might still be left ducking under the nearest table.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]
 

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