What a great class today! I really enjoyed listening to everyone's thoughts on these topics. Just to summarize each scenario:
Your team has a new prediction method that has never been tested before, but you believe it will predict some earthquakes larger than magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale. One day at work, your instruments tell you that there is a 3% chance of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake in San Fransico within the next 15 minutes.
The essential question:
Would it be worse to send a Warning, but then the quake doens't occur or you don't send a warning and the quake does occur?
Your team has been developing a method to prevent large quakes from occurring. You know five things:
1. A fault in your local area has built up enough strain to cause a 6.0 earthquake
2. There is a 50% chance that it could occur in the next ten years.
3. You may be able to prevent it by causing a series of about 25 smaller quakes in the same location to relase the strain on the rocks.
4. You predic that each of the smaller quakes will be less than 5.0.
5. There is a 10% chance that the small er quakes could actually trigger the major quake instead of preventing it.
Should we take our chances and/or prepare for the one large one or should would we cause the series of 25 smaller ones, hoping to release the strain of the rocks?
I'd love to hear what all of you think. I'm looking forward to reading some great comments.
~Cool Teacher Dude