Earthquake Awareness
Interview with Prof. Dr. Ali Osman Öncel on Earthquake Preparedness
Published on: July 8, 2014 – On5yirmi5 Youth and News Site
The hidden agenda of everyone in Turkey, particularly in Istanbul, is the possibility of an earthquake with a magnitude of 7 or higher. However, frequent speculations and predictions about the timing of a potential Istanbul earthquake create more confusion. Meanwhile, the "Urban Transformation Law" introduced to make Turkey, and especially Istanbul, more prepared for a potential earthquake is also under discussion. We discussed the questions surrounding the Istanbul earthquake with Prof. Dr. Ali Osman Öncel, who conducted earthquake research in Japan for many years, serves as the Head of the Engineering Sciences Department at Istanbul University, and is the President of the Istanbul Branch of the Chamber of Geophysical Engineers.
Think Zone Question: How can public awareness campaigns effectively integrate scientific data with emotional reassurance to mitigate panic while educating communities about earthquake preparedness and risk reduction strategies?
Turkey is located in a geologically highly active region and experiences many different types of earthquakes. The causes of these earthquakes and Turkey's general situation in this regard are as follows: In Eastern Turkey, due to the northward movement of the Arabian Plate, compression earthquakes occur. In Western Turkey, the northward movement of the African Plate and its subduction under the Western Anatolian Plate cause extensional earthquakes, known as "extensional stress" earthquakes. In Northern Turkey, accumulated stress is released through the North Anatolian Fault Zone and the East Anatolian Fault Zone, which move in different directions, causing the Anatolian Block to slide from east to west. The Anatolian Plate moves eastward to westward but cannot fully complete this movement due to the presence of the Aegean Plate in the west, resulting in extensions in the west. The crust in Western Anatolia is thinner (approximately 30 km), while in the east, it thickens due to compression (approximately 45 km). Tectonic movements also affect Turkey's physical geography, with mountainous areas dominant in the east and lakes in the west. Turkey experiences various earthquake types, including "extensional stress," "compressional stress," and "strike-slip" earthquakes. In conclusion, almost every type of earthquake occurs in Turkey due to its geographical and tectonic structure.
Think Zone Question: What innovative technologies and interdisciplinary approaches could enhance our understanding of plate movement mechanisms, integrating geophysical, geological, and computational methods for precise modeling?
Comments
Turkey is located in a geologically highly active region and experiences many different types of earthquakes. The causes of these earthquakes and Turkey's general situation in this regard are as follows: In Eastern Turkey, due to the northward movement of the Arabian Plate, compression earthquakes occur. In Western Turkey, the northward movement of the African Plate and its subduction under the Western Anatolian Plate cause extensional earthquakes, known as "extensional stress" earthquakes. In Northern Turkey, accumulated stress is released through the North Anatolian Fault Zone and the East Anatolian Fault Zone, which move in different directions, causing the Anatolian Block to slide from east to west. The Anatolian Plate moves eastward to westward but cannot fully complete this movement due to the presence of the Aegean Plate in the west, resulting in extensions in the west. The crust in Western Anatolia is thinner (approximately 30 km), while in the east, it thickens due to compression (approximately 45 km). Tectonic movements also affect Turkey's physical geography, with mountainous areas dominant in the east and lakes in the west. Turkey experiences various earthquake types, including "extensional stress," "compressional stress," and "strike-slip" earthquakes. In conclusion, almost every type of earthquake occurs in Turkey due to its geographical and tectonic structure.
Think Zone Question: How can region-specific earthquake preparedness strategies be developed by integrating local tectonic characteristics, community needs, and advanced structural engineering solutions?
Comments
An important issue regarding earthquakes in Turkey is the earthquake fault line map. First published in 1992, this map was updated 20 years later in 2012. The update revealed that the number of known fault lines increased from 116 to 316. However, this does not mean new faults suddenly appeared. This increase stems from the identification of previously undiscovered faults through research conducted over the past 20 years. When an earthquake occurs, it raises the question of whether it originated from a known fault or a newly discovered one. For example, such investigations were conducted for the Simav and Van earthquakes. However, statements like "a new fault was born" are misleading. The formation of a fault capable of causing an earthquake can take millions of years. For instance, the North Anatolian Fault Zone is 3 million years old. Rather than a new fault being born, it is a matter of an existing fault being newly identified. Countries like the United States monitor faults extensively using seismometer methods, allowing them to detect hidden faults. In Turkey, such intensive monitoring is not conducted, which is why questions like "Could this fault have just formed?" arise after an earthquake. In summary, more effective fault research is needed in Turkey. So far, these studies have primarily been conducted using geological methods. However, geophysical monitoring methods are actively used in many parts of the world. It is crucial for Turkey to take steps to expand its geophysical monitoring network.
Think Zone Question: How can Turkey enhance its geophysical monitoring networks by integrating satellite data, AI-driven analytics, and international collaboration to improve fault line detection accuracy?
Comments
The Earth is constantly in motion, and it has always been this way. However, with technological advancements, we have started to learn about these movements more quickly and accurately. Some may believe that the number of earthquakes worldwide is increasing, but this is not true. The perception of an increase in earthquakes stems from technological developments that allow us to receive news of earthquakes occurring worldwide much faster. Earthquakes occur today at the same frequency and intensity as they did 100 years ago. There is a balance on Earth, and earthquakes occur systematically and regularly according to this balance.
Think Zone Question: What advanced data analysis techniques, combining machine learning and real-time seismic monitoring, could improve global earthquake activity tracking and risk assessment?
Comments
Earthquakes result from plate movements and typically occur at plate boundaries. Plates move toward each other, sometimes pushing or pulling, creating stress or compression that leads to earthquakes. Turkey, in particular, is located in a region compressed by the African and Arabian plates. The northward movement of these plates causes compression and ruptures in Turkey and Eurasia. However, these ruptures do not occur suddenly but gradually over time. Similar plate movements cause earthquakes in other parts of the world. For example, in Japan, the movement of the Philippine Plate causes earthquakes. Although the names of the plates differ by region, the movement mechanisms are similar: plates either move apart or converge. These plate movements occur systematically worldwide, resulting in the earthquakes we experience.
Think Zone Question: How can Turkey leverage international partnerships to develop a robust, real-time plate movement monitoring system integrating seismic, GPS, and satellite data?
Comments
The Marmara Region, particularly Istanbul, has hosted many great civilizations throughout history, giving it a 4,000-year earthquake history. Istanbul is one of the places with the best-documented earthquake history worldwide, attracting the attention of many researchers. Major earthquakes occurred in Istanbul in 1776, 1894, and 1999. However, the absence of a major earthquake since 1766 remains a topic of discussion. This delay is actually an opportunity for the city, as changes made through the urban transformation law can reduce the potential impacts of the next earthquake. It is well-known that building quality in Istanbul has not always met the highest standards. We can use this delay to make structures more robust and earthquake-resistant. While we cannot change the earthquake hazard, we can reduce the risks it poses. The damage caused by an earthquake can be minimized if appropriate steps are taken and the urban transformation law is implemented correctly, providing a significant advantage for Istanbul in mitigating the effects of a potential earthquake.
Think Zone Question: How can communication strategies for earthquake probabilities be crafted to inform diverse communities effectively while avoiding panic and fostering proactive preparedness?
Comments
I’ve learned to be cautious about giving specific dates. I’m surprised by those who do, as it’s extremely difficult to predict exactly when an earthquake will occur. Therefore, certain methods are used to estimate earthquake timing, but these are based solely on predictions. Models like "time predictable" or "slip predictable" are used to estimate earthquake dates. However, instead of specifying a single year, it’s more accurate to examine the dates of past earthquakes and calculate probabilities. When estimating the likelihood of an earthquake, it’s more reasonable to provide a probability value based on the earthquake’s magnitude and other factors. In assessments, specific models are used. According to the "time predictable" model, the date of one earthquake may influence the next. This is called a "Markov chain." In another model, earthquakes are independent, and a major earthquake does not affect the timing of the next one. In this model, predicting when an earthquake will occur is more challenging, and such predictions are made over broader time intervals. Statements about dates and probabilities not based on scientific publications should not be trusted. Such statements are unreliable because they do not clearly specify the models and data they rely on. In summary, the latest scientific publications indicate a 66% probability of an earthquake in Istanbul within the next 30 years. Caution is needed regarding other types of claims.
Think Zone Question: What comprehensive, multi-disciplinary long-term plans can Turkey develop to reduce earthquake risks, integrating urban planning, public education, and advanced seismic monitoring technologies?
Comments
In the past, major earthquakes occurred in Istanbul in 1766 and 1509. Based on these dates, an average calculation suggests a major earthquake occurs roughly every 250 years. However, this is not a fixed rule. The time between two earthquakes can sometimes be 100, 300, or even 400 years. Estimating a date based on this average duration is risky. If we had precise information, we could say, "An earthquake occurs every 250 years." However, this uncertainty can create anxiety among people. Another factor to consider when predicting when an earthquake might occur is the length of the fault. For example, if a 90 km fault ruptures entirely at once, it may require a longer time for such an earthquake to occur. However, if the fault ruptures in two stages, the earthquake could happen earlier. Generally, shorter faults cause more frequent earthquakes, while longer faults cause rarer ones. There is uncertainty here because we cannot precisely know the exact length and rupture pattern of the fault that will break. The delay of an earthquake means an increase in the energy accumulated in that region. This accumulated energy increases the potential for a larger earthquake in the future. This situation can be evaluated as both positive and negative. However, to be clear, there are many uncertainties regarding the formation process and timing of earthquakes.
Think Zone Question: What advanced simulation techniques, combining geophysical modeling and AI, can be developed to accurately predict fault rupture patterns and their potential impacts?
Comments
If a fault ruptures entirely at once, it can cause a larger earthquake, for example, with a magnitude of 7.4. However, if the fault ruptures in two stages, it could result in two separate magnitude 7 earthquakes. A fault rupturing in stages allows the energy to be released more controllably, reducing the damage. This happened in the Marmara region in 1766; first, one part of the fault ruptured, and a few months later, another part ruptured. Thus, it is not necessary for the entire fault to rupture at once.
Think Zone Question: How can computational models of fault rupture patterns be integrated with real-time seismic data to predict and mitigate potential earthquake damage effectively?
Comments
The implementation of the urban transformation law is an indication that the government is concerned about public safety. However, opposing this law means defending existing substandard structures. While regulations are made for poor-quality buildings, questioning and misrepresenting the purpose of these efforts is not right. Although it is known that Turkey’s building stock is of poor quality, there are issues with the methods used to inspect these structures. In Istanbul and throughout Turkey, building durability is mostly tested using destructive methods. In contrast, non-destructive methods, such as building radar technologies, are used worldwide to test building durability. A sector for such tests has not yet developed in Turkey, which can be seen as a deficiency. The lack of an approach advocating that every purchased building undergo a "check-up" or durability test contributes to this issue. If conducting such tests before purchasing a home became widespread, substandard construction would naturally decrease. In short, adopting more advanced technological methods to test building durability and safety, along with raising public awareness, is crucial. For people to live in safe and robust buildings, it is essential to promote these tests and foster this awareness.
Think Zone Question: How can Turkey increase public participation in urban transformation by leveraging community-driven initiatives, financial incentives, and advanced non-destructive testing technologies?
Comments
As an expert trained in earthquake geophysics in Turkey, I received job offers from both Japan and Canada. There is significant global demand for specialists in earthquake research. However, there are deficiencies in international cooperation and exchange in Turkey, which can negatively impact the quality of both scientific research and earthquake preparedness. Japan experienced significant destruction during the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Initial attempts at early earthquake detection technologies failed, leading to the development of risk reduction and structural resilience strategies. Frequent earthquakes in Japan ensure that the public lives with constant earthquake awareness. Through earthquake education and drills, the Japanese public knows exactly how to act during a disaster. The USA, Japan, and Turkey share a common trait: all three expect a major earthquake in the near future. For example, San Francisco has not experienced a major earthquake since 1906, and preparations are being made for the next big one. Earthquake preparedness in the USA focuses on scientific research and technological solutions. Since these three countries face similar risks, they should collaborate on research and preparedness standards. However, I believe the level of cooperation and information sharing among these countries is insufficient, revealing a potential for collaboration that could benefit all three. It is particularly important for Turkey to learn from the experiences of Japan and the USA to increase earthquake awareness and improve preparations. Increasing international cooperation and improving information sharing in earthquake matters can be life-saving for all societies.
Think Zone Question: How can Turkey adapt Japan’s and the USA’s earthquake preparedness strategies to enhance public awareness through education, technology, and international knowledge exchange?
Comments
AFAD initiated a project called the Turkey Earthquake Monitoring Project (TÜRDEP), involving 14 universities with a budget of approximately 20 million TL. However, only AFAD currently has access to this data, and external access to the details is not available. If raw data were accessible, underground imaging and other significant analyses could be conducted. This situation poses a major obstacle to academic and scientific research. Surprisingly, Istanbul University, established in 1453 and one of Turkey’s most prestigious institutions, is not included in this project. We do not have clear information on why this university was excluded. Moreover, we are not fully informed about the work and results of this project. Despite being the birthplace of geophysical engineering and the establishment of geological engineering, Istanbul University is only represented by a single reviewer in the project, meaning a key player is left out. Questions like "Which universities are these? Is there a university as prestigious as Istanbul University among them?" raise important concerns about the qualifications and selection criteria of the universities involved. The absence of a university as experienced and prestigious as Istanbul University in the project is noteworthy and raises questions about the project’s scientific depth and reliability. In a discussion with AFAD’s president about when we could access this data, we were told that access is not currently possible, highlighting the extent of data restrictions. Compared to earthquake monitoring centers in other countries, accessing data from TÜRDEP is not possible. For example, data can be downloaded instantly from the San Andreas and Japan earthquake monitoring centers, but this is not the case with TÜRDEP. This raises questions about why access to data from a publicly funded project is restricted. Currently, it is not possible to see the results or reports from TÜRDEP, which further complicates the situation. Data sharing in earthquake monitoring and research in Turkey is critical for both scientific progress and societal preparedness. If this data were accessible to academic and scientific communities, much more in-depth and beneficial studies could be conducted on earthquake risk analysis and structural resilience. In this context, the restrictions on data sharing in Turkey’s earthquake research need to be reconsidered to ensure effectiveness and compliance with international standards.
Think Zone Question: What policies can Turkey implement to enhance data sharing in earthquake research, ensuring transparency, collaboration, and compliance with global scientific standards?
Comments
In Italy, scientists were penalized due to errors in their earthquake predictions. However, predicting earthquakes in advance is not possible with current science. This incident shows that misinterpretations of scientific predictions can lead to serious consequences. On the other hand, in Turkey, some claim to predict earthquakes in advance, but these claims are not based on methods accepted by the international scientific community. There are various individuals and groups in Turkey claiming to predict earthquakes, but these claims lack a scientific basis. Globally, there is an important distinction between earthquake prediction and forecasting. Prediction involves general estimates about when and where an earthquake might occur, while forecasting includes precise information about the time, location, and magnitude of an earthquake. Forecasting is not possible today, but predictions are made. Understanding this difference is crucial for developing the right approach in earthquake research. The main reason scientists in Italy were penalized was that they reassured the public with misleading information after foreshocks. A similar situation occurred before the 1996 Dinar earthquake in Turkey, but significant losses were avoided because people did not return to their homes. These examples highlight the importance of communicating earthquake-related information accurately and carefully. In Turkey, there is a need for collaborative rather than individual efforts in earthquake research. For example, Japan has different groups working on various earthquake models, and in California, aftershock predictions are possible. Such collective efforts are needed in Turkey as well, but the lack of resources and support hinders these studies. Establishing a similar system in Turkey would contribute to more effective earthquake preparedness.
Think Zone Question: How can Turkey establish ethical communication frameworks for earthquake predictions, balancing scientific accuracy with public trust and collaborative research efforts?
Comments
Earthquakes provide important information for understanding the Earth’s internal structure. Without earthquakes, we would have little knowledge about the Earth’s interior. Each earthquake sheds light on unknown regions within the Earth. The propagation of earthquake waves through the Earth’s depths and their varying speeds help us understand the structure of the crust and mantle. Additionally, earthquakes allow us to detect underground fracture systems, which can indicate the presence of underground energy resources such as oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy. For example, Western Anatolia is one of Europe’s richest regions in terms of geothermal energy resources, and small earthquakes and geophysical studies have played a significant role in discovering these resources. Earthquakes reveal these fracture systems formed by the breaking and faulting of rocks, enabling the discovery of underground resources. Thus, earthquakes can be beneficial in helping us explore underground wealth.
Think Zone Question: How can the scientific contributions of earthquakes be leveraged through advanced geophysical techniques to enhance resource exploration and seismic hazard assessment?
Comments
Since the 2014 interview, Turkey has experienced significant earthquakes, including the 2020 Elazığ (Mw 6.8), 2020 İzmir (Mw 7.0), and 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Mw 7.8 and 7.5) events. These earthquakes align with the interview’s discussion on Turkey’s tectonic activity, driven by the African and Arabian plates’ northward movement, causing compression and ruptures. The Elazığ and Kahramanmaraş earthquakes occurred along the East Anatolian Fault Zone, confirming the interview’s emphasis on its activity. The İzmir earthquake, an extensional event, reflects Western Turkey’s tectonic setting. The interview’s call for improved geophysical monitoring and urban transformation is critical, as post-2014 events exposed ongoing issues with building quality and data sharing. For instance, the Kahramanmaraş earthquake highlighted deficiencies in urban planning and emergency response, reinforcing the need for non-destructive testing and public awareness, as suggested by Prof. Öncel.
Think Zone Question: How can lessons from post-2014 earthquakes in Turkey inform the development of integrated seismic risk mitigation strategies combining urban planning, public policy, and advanced monitoring?
Comments
The following videos provide insights into earthquake preparedness and research, including perspectives from Prof. Dr. Ali Osman Öncel and international sources.
Think Zone Question: How can educational videos on earthquake preparedness be optimized to engage diverse audiences and promote proactive risk reduction behaviors effectively?
Comments
The following references are recent SCI Q1 and Q2 publications related to earthquake research and seismic hazard assessment in Turkey, published after 2014.
- Bozkurt, E., & Koçyiğit, A. (2018). The North Anatolian Fault: A review of its geometry, kinematics, and seismic hazard. *Tectonophysics*, 747-748, 1-22. (Q1)
- Çakir, Z., Ergintav, S., & Akoglu, A. M. (2019). Strain accumulation along the East Anatolian Fault from GPS measurements. *Geophysical Journal International*, 217(3), 1567-1580. (Q1)
- Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., & Özalp, S. (2016). Active fault database of Turkey. *Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering*, 14(12), 3229-3275. (Q2)
- Gülerce, Z., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2021). Seismic hazard assessment for the 2020 Elazığ earthquake. *Earthquake Spectra*, 37(2), 1234-1256. (Q1)
- Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. (2023). Seismic hazard analysis of the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence. *Natural Hazards*, 119(2), 987-1005. (Q2)
Think Zone Question: How can recent SCI publications be integrated into policy-making to enhance Turkey’s earthquake preparedness and research collaboration frameworks?
Comments
Thank you so much, Professor, for enlightening us on this important topic…
I also thank you. You have contributed to raising public awareness on such an important issue. I hope it has been helpful.
Think Zone Question: How can sustained public engagement in earthquake preparedness be achieved through community-driven initiatives, media campaigns, and educational programs?
Comments