In which case, you probably know more about it than I do. My status is humble. However, it is a fascinating area of science.
One thing I’ve always enjoyed about my job and earthquake research is the uneasy relationship between conventionalist and for want of a better term the lateralists.
Conventionalists look at earthquake hazard mitigation through the prism of measurement and process description. Their interest is directed toward hazard mitigation through better construction standards, city planning, and earthquake prediction over the longer term and how this might influence these other aspects of hazard mitigation. It is an extremely practical, erstwhile solution to a problem that found a lot of traction vis a vis mitigation efforts when the best the lateralists could offer was barking dogs and cloud formations.
On the other hand, and I’d be interested to hear your opinion on this, it seems to me that the conventionalists might be unwittingly and at times overtly holding back the real possibility of earthquake prediction in our lifetimes.
The issue as I see it relates to funding. Measurement is expensive and has traditionally held sway because at the very least it offered understanding of earthquake severity, likelihood, and to a lesser extent location. From a traditionalists point of view, it offers real value. Yet, the holy grail is in short term prediction.
I’ve read a few papers recently about short term prediction, in particular the work of some local researchers and ionospheric TEC that seems promising with one claim that at least theoretically short term prediction is possible, especially given Taiwan’s latitude.
A while back, however, after the Kobe earthquake, Japan set up a council to study short term prediction but the project was wound up after only a few years because of a lack of funding. The conventionalists actively undermined the lateralists to ensure funding was better directed toward their areas of research.
To my mind, I think that the lateralists should be given the scope and means to conceptualize methods for short term prediction. I say this because I think there is a fundamental truth to the basic premise that for all the value that measurement and understanding of process and mechanism offers essentially all one needs to know is that the big ones are dangerous and the big ones present anomalous behavior prior to nucleation that matches their strength so lets look for that.