on behalf of romans bookstore i would like to welcome you on behalf of susan hough if you like to ask questions for the q&a use ask a question button. if you see any questions that seem interesting you can also vote for them and they will make their way to the very top of the list. if you are considering visiting the bookstore. just click on the green purchase button directly. you will be redirected to our website.

our next virtual event is scheduled for tomorrow august 28 and you can learn more about her upcoming virtual event on her website as well as by following up on crowd cast. let me introduce our speakers for tonight. susan susan hough a seismologist at the u.s. geological survey. she has served as an editor and contributor for many generals. she was formally usurped of the board of directors as well as the southern california earth quake center. she is the author of five books. joining her tonight as henry found. he is a writer that covers climate change.

he wrote about research findings from across the world in science. he is the author of the great quake. with that said i'm going to turn the screen over to our speakers. enjoy the talk. it's great to be here. i wanted to take this. i live not far from romans. i live in a virtual world right now. it's long been my favorite bookstore and one of my favorite reporters the title of my book just came to me one day. and i eventually told henry that i have not consciously

lived off of this book title. it's possible it was in my subconscious and that bubbled out. doubly check out both the great quake in the great quake debate. it focuses on the 1964 viking trip. i think we had people from a ways away. that's great. i know there's a lot going on in the world. some of that good a lot of it not so good. we appreciate everybody tuning in and we look forward to the q&a at the end. >> to get the ball rolling i was going to read just a couple of pages for a few minutes to start off. and then we will move to a conversation.

we will leave time for q&a at the end. there is ask a question tab hopefully at the bottom if you have any questions. >> if you do have the book by chance. i was can start reading on page 160. to set the stage. where i start reading the 1925 santa barbara earthquake have struck. scientists that were trying to make the case in los angeles with the kind of damage that can occur. they were pushing back. it was to some extent of teachable moment. they started to lose momentum. and willis stepped forward.

in the middle of things. whatever understanding have been worked out. bailey willis distance in the san francisco bay area never signed onto the deal. in the words of historian. by the end of 1925 willis decided to embark on a new strategy it would scare californians not only porting backwards at the recent seismic instruction. that it was much larger than the santa barbara shop would soon strike california. >> his prediction was based to some extent on a result that have come out after the coast. the survey results and became known in 1923. they avoided making overly alarmist public statements.

analysis of early data. from that triangulation measurements. the have not been properly connected. it did not support a specific forecast. they had written in the 1969 article. at what time future shocks will occur we do not know. we do know that since 1769 he was wrong about that by the way. the average points conclusively to greater frequency.

even a month or year cannot be approximated. even uprooted cited just face the dilemma that remained familiar. the raised concerns in professional circles. it was not any specific timeframe. they did know however. it would be released eventually. they had spoken publicly to a limited extent about the buildup of strain before the santa barbara earthquake struck.

they went more squarely. pointing to the results. the leaders among others. in 1925. that a large earthquake in the southland was nine. no one knows if it will be one year or ten years. those who are not prepared those who are not prepared then as now. there could be a fine line between insane enough. neither direction away from that line. unfortunate things happen. they ignore warnings altogether. and the other people might panic were all doomed what's the point. there was such a danger. now it's in willis' day.

and the statements he made in november of 1925 willis did more than that. no one knows whether it will be one year or ten years. in fact, no one knew whether it would be one year or ten years or 100 years. there is almost a was almost a century of hind sight. including not only the ones that would mostly put an end to the great quick debate. and a pair of larger numbers. not too far north of los angeles. the earthquake in southern california.

when the scientist dances and oversteps that. they translate the science statement. they are moreover designed to grab the reader's attention. with less room for subtlety. the words soon found their way into the national media. the new york times for example publish an article titled professor willis predicts los angeles tremors. the article began. they will experience a severe earthquake. in one to ten years. dr. bailey will be there.

they stated three years ago. a prophecy that was fulfilled in the past summer. both of the years following the 1906 the great quake debate in southern california at various times they have simmered in stewed in flared. >> i was going to leave it to everyone to read more. about the debate. mister hill as well. the book kind of involves into intertwined biographies. one of them was bailey willis.

who ended up on his own sign of that line. and the other was robert help. he was the skeptic. and when i started working on the book. i was interested in the debate itself. they don't quite agree. i was curious as what the real story was. the more i get into that. the more i knew how really fascinating individuals they were. there's a lot of things that we really like. you can delve into the both of

us equally. it was really remarkable. and as we need to talk about this. and they are both scientists obviously. and quite renowned scientist. they were particularly there. people i know what the problematic personalities. maybe he was more of a curmudgeon or whatever. i felt more empathy for him just because he was our problem child.

he was academic and brilliant but did not always play well with others. in 1958. when he was still a toddler civil war. they rolled through his hometown. his parents lost their house. his father lost his life and not in war but to illness. it was a military team dragging her away. from there the childhood proceeded. he made his way to the frontier in texas.

and then he made his way. never having gotten past it. they were then able to launch this career. is this idea. the debate that went on. if i would school to be a seismologist what i learn about this or is this an obscure thing that you latch onto. see the there you go.

i often end up talking to top science writers. they often understand extremely well. this idea in this debate that took place back then. i wouldn't say everybody knows about it. scientists in general adults tend to be that interested in history. the history of science is kind of like an orphaned sub deal. historians don't tend to care so much about that. and scientist don't care so much about history. there are some of us who are more interested in the

history. they have come up a little bit in my previous book they were the first one to come out with a public prediction. if you look back scientist since 1925 have been making kind of alarmist statements. that they are overdue for a great earthquake. and it started in 1925. there were others. there was the part famously in the 1970s. and the conventional telling. is that they were the flawed hero. bailey willis was a tool in the back pockets.

in sort of painted as a laughingstock. then eventually over time i became aware that there was a second version of the debate which painted hell as hell as a victim. that he had been set up by business interests who had twisted his words. nancy it was well known. i became aware of the work. i found it really interesting reading about both of them. if i remember correctly. was she in santa barbara when the santa barbara happened.

they didn't deny that they have predicted that earthquake. where in fact she really hadn't. did that play a role in him being the crusader type? i think he was inclined to a crusade. he didn't shy away from opportunities to step onto a stage. i heard he was very impassioned and effective. he was maybe a little bit of a show boat. and then in 1925 and this was how the project started for me. i was researching the 1925 earthquake. i wanted to understand what they had been on.

and i realized that willis have left his papers to the huntington library. i applied for reader privileges. i was looking into the earthquake and then i realized there is this huge collection of letters that they wrote. i started to get interested in the other was very curious. he have made public statements based on this. it seemed to show that a lot was building up in southern california. he have made some limited public statements. and then on june 28 he and one of his sons took the train down to santa barbara. he didn't talk in his letters about why he was doing some kind of consulting.

as more developed very naturally. he have predicted it. he didn't take pains to set the record straight. >> i'm just wondering if you got a little taste of fame at that point. as the great predictor. and that influence them down the road. didn't seem like the type of guy that would be influenced in that way. but you never know. >> you can see it looking back. hill and willis were born around the same time. it started at the usgs. their careers were un- intertwined. they took a road trip together down to texas in 98. you could see them.

that willis wasn't shying away from the attention. there were a couple of times in my research that i actually laughed out loud in archives which is something you're not supposed to do. archives are very quiet places. but one of them was finding a little newspaper article that willis have saved that was just hysterical. it was the beach mermaid but it was a little editorial letter in the santa barbara paper. that was suggesting that willis got used to the media attention. it was pretty funny. meanwhile hell is kind of fuming they just can't seem to

get out of their own way. it was kind of interesting i'm not a big reader of biographies but i've never read a dual biography. there was a lot of similarities. in terms of their age and professor. there's 70 differences if he you were in nature versus nurture person. willis who had relatively easy time up in new york state i believe. willis did lose his father at a young age. i had been a renowned writer

and celebrity. it was really very idyllic. then it was set into motion some hard times. but willis' mother have a number of kids. but willis was younger. she was the world to him. he grew up with an absolutely loving supportive mother whereas hill grew up to all intensive purposes and orphan. they were in some ways just an absolute studying contest. included that. that was one interesting thing about the book. diversity is now on a lot of people's minds. and rightly so some of the conversations are very overdue.

he felt like the victim of discrimination. he was right --dash my -- he was white and male and dissent. among the northern that was a life long lifelong chip on his shoulder. like he was a victim from biases. every little issue that came up. the fact that there were biases against people from the south maybe some of those are

still out there. it certainly was for him. he have never been north of the mason dixon line. trade was just monsters. all the sudden he's going off and takes a stagecoach eventually. he actually explained as very good experience. and for the first time in his life he was in a setting where people were interested in science and knowledge. after his parents were gone he lived with a grandmother who was extremely religious extremely strict. there wasn't a lot of encouragement or there weren't

science books in the house for example. cornell really was a good part for him. it was when he got to the usgs in washington dc. that he started to run into what he saw as the biases. and he was still paying student loans. right to his own deathbed. he wrote a check in 1928. to cornell. i never figured out if he paid them off entirely. when you think of student loans as a modern-day thing. it was something. he got to cornell with no money. so working his way through school.

in borrowing money here or there. i think to meet again. the thing that is so interesting is how human these people are. and it's always great. i know and my job. i talked to scientists all the time. and some of them seem pretty human and some of them don't. to really get the rich humanity with people is really a valuable thing. yearbook also. it is wonderful bringing george to life. and yet. i envy you. and this great. george is very much alive and well. if people haven't read henry's book. he was kind of a leading scientist who went up to alaska after the earthquake. and sorted out what have happened in the earthquake. at a time when the leading

seismologist turned out to be wrong. and george is a great guy. he works for the same organization that i do. he is alive and well. in his early '90s. and you got to talk to him. see mike i spent quite a bit of time with him. before i wrote that book. which was three or four years ago now. i didn't know anything about geology. george basically was my geology teacher. i feel pretty what it meant for me to have that describing. the mountain build. in alaska. it was just a great experience. he's a very interesting guy.

in terms of the orphanage to the early age. not only when he was real active gs guy. certainly he certainly not like the chip on his shoulder. the hell does. in order to know that. and to get to know scientist. and i think that that's what your book does. it helps. i feel like i got to know this people. another thing is that. the part that you read as well. i still think of people like. were in a different time now. we have learned a lot about earthquakes in the 90 years

but there is still of the issue how threatened and what is the risk. how should we deal with the risk. that's part of your job. to talk it people about the risk. in some things things really haven't changed although they have. see mike we know so much more than we did at the 20's. that was before the plate tectonics. and the revolution. which george oscar contributed to. people really didn't understand about the earthquakes. they have some sense that they were postured in certain zones. sounds. they didn't understand that we had plate boundary zones. they didn't understand the rate of earthquake and how often they were occurring on average. so bailey willis. here he would made a statement

about earthquakes and great earthquakes happening every 50 years. that was off base. they didn't have a sense how big they were. let alone how often they occurred. so geologists have dug into the address vault and found evidence of past earthquakes and from that we get an average recurrence. we know on average how often they occur. that's one of the key agreed ingredients. they have gotten better and better. and those are critical to develop a building codes. the building codes. with appropriate provisions. so an awful lot has changed but we are still want to know. when as the next big one can be. and that's where we really haven't made any headway in terms of making a prediction. on a short timescale. or even a decade old

timescale. there is a sense were all waiting for the southern san andreas. to have a big earthquake. the southern most part of the fault has not ruptured since around exceed 90:00. it was established only by geology. the 1857 earthquake. which was in los angeles. it was a hundred 50 years ago. and so that starts to feel like quite a long time if there is various evidence. that there is a lot of strain built up. we wouldn't be surprised if something happened to me this year or even this decade. that translates for the public how worried should i be. i grew up in new york. i was in mexico. it's really not earthquake country. i'm always like how do people live in california.

obviously. you come to terms with it. just like living in new york. you think of a hurricane hitting every 30 years or so. there is still an issue of how do we as a seismologist. in a person he who is an earthquake expert. have he warned people but not panic. panic. that is a vanishing fine line. it has not gone away. i heard the author of it. with a couple days ago. who has written a book about los angeles. i ask asked him about earthquakes which i think had contributed to the place in los angeles. in that sense of identity that we all feel. if you live here part of living here is living on the

ends and edge and having that realization that something could hit you at any time. and now i'm forgetting again if it was a question. you might feel that way. when you inform people with that risk. that fine line and hasn't gone away. and i think it has gotten worse. there has been such a weaponization of science now. the science we had debates. but there is a body of knowledge that is established that we know. even in the 20s. there is a body of knowledge

but if you're trying to have a nuance balanced discussion on the larger political environment where people are refusing to accept basic science i think gets more and more difficult i do want to conclude that they play a role in the process with the media but the media plays an important role as well. there is some really good science journalism out there. i think that helps. to make it is interesting. as you point out in your book. even then if it bleeds it leads.

with the photo of a disaster. of a near disaster. it certainly true in the place i worked at the new york times. and it is true in broadcast news and cable news. you talk about nuance. there is just not and much nuance as one would hope and wish in the media. getting into the great quake debate. i think there would be looking at what the business interest was doing. it was very easy to paint as the bad guys. i think the truth is more complicated than simple short

telling. some of the things they were saying back then weren't entirely unreasonable. they were making a point that when earthquakes happened. the coverage tended to be bias see the pictures of the buildings that are knocked down. it's recently as 2015. if you think back to the headlines in the stories that you saw on the news i remember them saved what the whole cultural heritage was destroyed. my heart was in my throat initially. i killed 9,000 people and took a very heavy toll.

but i landed about a month after the earthquake and it was just stunning how few signs of damage that there were. the picture you got just five years ago in the media versus the boots on the ground reality were so so different. it identifies as well to when they get noticed. and the person that knows most about the earthquakes. auditors asked me about it. it's .8 .8 in chile or something. they've knocked down some buildings. this is really unusual. it's probably like 6.8 earthquakes of the week.

the coverage even back then. to report on it. and put it in print. and it's having the photographs really really made a different in the 1906 earthquake have a path for different reasons. and that plays it very basic. that people tend to worry about the wrong things. they worry about plane crashes. when 40,000 americans are killed on the road. earthquakes are kind of the same way. we don't like them.

hurricanes you her kids you see them coming. where is earthquakes when your house starts shaking at 431 in the morning even if you're a seismologist that is terrifying. they are fundamentally scary in a way that is hard to deal with. there are people who leave california especially if they go through a big earthquake. i think it does shape the folks who stay here. the craziness for something. speaking of science. one of the other points at i thought was great in your book. was the fact that this whole debate was really science at work.

there were a lot of things in those ideas. they finally got half of it rate. over time. that's the way science works. there is a debate about things and things get work hope you mrs. like the scientistic process at work. they were all sorts of crazy ideas. even the first out was a lot of bad ideas. i got worked out. in an age.

with the science around it. you broke up a little bit. i don't know if other people heard you. there were a lot of interesting things about researching those books. look at what hill and willis were saying and things that we know but realizing that they were pretty insightful at the time. so you go back to 1920. they did not know the plates were moving around. but they could move sideways or vertically. there was no theory to explain the lateral forces. they tended to voters focused on the. the earth expanding.

or contracting. or ideas of these blisters. severe starting on the fundamentally wrong premise. you can make some insightful remnants that are completely wrong. he concluded this. and they had slowed down over time. which is wrong. but the rate of vertical fault has slowed down. starting with his premise it was actually a very insightful conclusion. the one thing about earthquake science is that earthquakes come along they are going to have the last word. how long will it shake in the next earthquake.

a lot of advances in earthquake science have happened because of this. they are getting studied much more than they used to obviously. there is some more data that goes through it. i think in the 64 earthquake. it was by far the most studied earthquake. it was fascinating to read about george koster. there was just so much technology with the rigid crest earthquakes happened last year in the desert within days.

we have a lesson about what have moved in and how and where the faults were. by developing better instrumentation has really driven the science. >> i had one eye on the time and i know that we were supposed to at some point breakaway for questions i thought they might come back on and guide us through the questions but i'm not seen her. i have them call that. how can scientist best communicate the risk of natural hazards.

>> i wish i knew. we have this climate there is a body of knowledge and things we can't say. in the contingents out there. i'm not sure what the answer is. i wish i knew. i think we just keep plugging away and look for ways to reach the people. to reach them better with social media and getting information out that way and trying to make science accessible. i hope with my book. one of the things i've done. take an interesting story. maybe because they are interesting characters and you want to know what the deal was. it is one of the ways that you

can popularize science and communicate with some of the aspects of science. but something in my community. they think about a lot and works on. they work on it all the time. the earthquake scientific community actually does a much better job than most scientific communities with communicating to the public. not just the earthquake hazards but the other hazard groups. even in these mark troubled more troubled times. they are willing to talk about their work. and help me and others i almost explain in a way that are wrong. i think you guys do a really good job.

i think about earthquakes. they tend to be nonpartisan. and people tend to agree that certain functions are governmental. putting out hazard maps. even people antigovernment tend to want the usgs to be around they were the agency that put out the maps. there is a question about earthquakes in oklahoma and other oil-producing states. i think the jury is in on that.

it is not hydraulic fracturing per se. and freeing up hydrocarbons. it is the oil recovery. in the actual fracturing. it can reduce small earthquakes. but the really bad actor is the race --dash mike wastewater. is toxic. it is disposed of the injection wells. so those walls get quite deep because you want to get a low that. that is the process that can do more significant earthquakes. we have a magnitude 5.8 in oklahoma. is coming up.

there was a debate about that. where they induced. where they natural. it wasn't just a cluster. there was an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to industry activities. it was kind of a success story in that if humans are causing earthquakes. you can mitigate hazard by changing what they're doing. in places like oklahoma had developed stoplight systems. if you scale back that's the sort of thing. the rate of earthquakes. it has really dropped. i think they had been doing oil and gas for so long.

and in fact. i think that the series of quakes around admin. they just close out five injection wells or something. and it disappeared. it is a success story. it is a risk you can manage. there are other risks associated with it. i think the induced earthquakes are manageable. will you had time for one more question if that's correct. there is one interesting question. was carried the public. does it help them to better repair for hazards? >> i come down on the side and that they have to be honest

brokers. i come down on one side of the line. i would not argue the exaggeration is ever appropriate. you can frame things in unfurnished terms. there are things we know. we know what happened in 1906 i think that needs to be presented but i don't think we should ever go beyond what the science can set. just because that's not what science is about. it can definitely back fire. the overall cause of reduction

took a hit for a while. i think we are about about the end of our time. there is a question on which faltered area i'm most concerned about. it is really hard to say. there is the hayward vault in the east bay area. we have a very long record of moderately long earthquakes. that it runs through a densely pod purely to the area.

at simply a concern. california has lots of those. and there is one half a mile north of where i'm sitting. almost every year it is part of fair game. i do think that we are at the end of our time because i was told an hour at the outset. i think our host is having trouble connecting. her microphone has malfunctioned she said. >> should we signoff? it sounds like we should. technology is the best. i wanted to thank everyone who took time out of their evening. to tune in. i know this is part of the

process of understanding hazards and communicating it is great that you are be able to join us. thanks again to henry. and the university of washington press. >> during a virtual event. the author series in new york. judy gold are first her thoughts on free speech and censorship. here is some of the discussion. i really believe you have the right to say whatever. i think the basis of that argument in the book is that if you're going to talk about the holocaust or whatever kids in cages racism, whatever it is. it has to be funny. you can tackle that issue but

you better craft a beautiful joke around it because gratuitously more than just the shock value humor with no joke attached to it. that's not what we do. a great comedian makes you think and laugh at the same time. i read about i'm a lesbian and i came out in the mid- 90s but i came out on stage as a gay. and finally had my first son. i have so much material. i never talked about my partner.

this is amazing. it was just hilarious. so i'm doing this material and after a few minutes most of the parents in the audience who were straight would be laughing because it's the same stuff they're going through. at one point. in the late '90s and early 2000 it's interesting how far that community can be. we've come so far. and yet you have children and it was the early 2000 and my kids are like why can't you get married it was ridiculous.

i did one about all of the people that were allowed to get married and i was at a lot to get married. more rights than i do. it was in fear rating. i was in houston and a guy came up to me after the show and said i understand it. as it is the power of comedy. and it is so amazing. it breaks some stigmas. when you laugh for someone you like them. to watch the rest of this program visit our website and search for judy gold or the title of her book. yes i can say that.

book tv is television for serious readers. all weekend every weekend. join us again next saturday beginning at 8:00 a.m. eastern for the best in nonfiction books. .. .. this new book "no rules rules: netflix and the culture of reinvention." mr. hastings is also the ceo of netflix. what is netflix and what do you do it? >> guest: netflix is the world's leading entertainment service. we produce and distribute amazing television series and