Nisqually...10 Years On

Headline from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 1, 2001.

Earthquake occurrences in the past seven days.
(Screen grab from www.usgs.gov)

A quick glance at the USGS' running tally of recent earthquakes in the U.S. (right) reminds us of the country's most tectonically active areas .  It's pretty clear: California and Alaska, followed by several other geographic pockets of notable activity.  For residents of one of those pockets--Seattle and the greater Puget Sound area--the February 28 dateline on the map at right carries special significance.

Today is the 10th anniversary of the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake, which struck the area at 10:54 a.m. local time on Wednesday, February 28, 2001.  Although it ranks as only the 82nd largest earthquake by magnitude (by my count) in the U.S., it is the third largest on record and the most recent significant quake in Washington state.

The quake originated at a depth of 52 km in the subsurface Juan de Fuca plate, which is subducting under the North American plate in the Cascadia subduction zone.  The epicenter (47.15N 122.72W) was located toward the southern end of Puget Sound, 17.6 km northeast of Olympia, WA and 57.5 km south southwest of Seattle.

A plea for more science coverage in local and community papers

Last week’s Isthmus (January 21, 2011) cover story, which ran under the provocative headline, “The Truth about Adult Stem Cells,” set my mind racing for the better part of an hour as I considered various arguments that swirl around the stem cell debate.  (For those that aren’t familiar with it, Isthmus is a weekly local paper in Madison, WI.)  I, like a lot of people it seems, have an opinion, albeit a murky one, on the subject. Although I have no intention of sharing it here.  I know better than to wade too quickly into a sure quagmire.  Plus, that’s not what this post is about.

After that initial hour or so the other day, my mind settled back down and I was able focus on other concerns.  But the article stuck with me.  I came back to it today, reread it, read the ensuing online commentary, and began the debate all over again in my head.

At some point, it dawned on me how effective the story had been—whether through solid writing, or because of the subject matter, or both—at holding my attention and causing me to weigh the issue.  It also got me thinking about how rare it is to find coverage of important scientific issues in local and community newspapers (i.e., circulation under about 50,000).