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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe