Ict Seeks Bt200 Million Budget To Predict Earthquakes

[george]

ICT seeks Bt200 million budget to predict earthquakes

BANGKOK: -- Smith Thammasaroch, advisor to Thailand's Information and Communication Technology Minister, revealed Saturday that the ICT ministry is preparing to request a budget of Bt200 million for studies of 14 potentially disruptive faults in the earth's crust nationwide within 2008.

The budget would be allocated to four leading institutions -- Chiang Mai, Khon Kaen, and Chulalongkorn universities and the Asian Institute of Technology -- with each receiving Bt50 million.

"All of these institutions are ready to conduct the studies as soon as the government approves the budget allocation," said Mr. Smith, a former Meteorology Department head.

Chiang Mai University will assess faults in the country's upper northern region, Khon Kaen University will study the lower northern and western regions, Chulalongkorn will probe faults in Kanchanaburi and Bangkok, while the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) will probe faults in the southern region.

In addition to 13 previously existing faults, Mr. Smith added, an additional fault was identified recently, extending through some areas of Bangkok.

"We know very little about these faults, despite the fact that they can cause violent earthquakes and hence serious destruction. That's why we must conduct a thorough study of them," according to Mr. Smith.

The expert commented after Saturday's 2.3 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale in Mae Rim district of Chiang Mai, which was struck by a similar earthquake on July 8.

The National Natural Disaster Warning Centre reported no casualties.

--TNA 2007-07-15

[richard10365]

The title is a bit misleading.

[CSS]

The title is a bit misleading.

Indeed it is. These TV headlines often are.

[chownah]

Probably a total waste of money.

[brahmburgers]

if studying fault lines by scientific method is the intent - toward a goal of lessening damage in the future - ok, perhaps it's not too big a waste of money.

However, Thais are immersed in paranormal and metaphysical mind-sets - so it's not a stretch to see money get allocated to hocus pocus ways to predict earthquakes - none of which would do any good even if they worked. Imagine getting a 90 second warning of an impending earthquake - what are we going to do with that. Even if it were announcemed on a radio station - would any listeners take any immediate protective action?

As inferred by the title, 'PREDICT' could mean using talismans, sorcerers, bird poop patterns, discarded snake skins, .....there is no limit to the absurdities gullible people will embrace in such matters.

Let's hope the money is allocated to hard science - though I could think of a number of more worthy projects

from the 'Nobody Asked Me Dept.'

[CSS]

if studying fault lines by scientific method is the intent - toward a goal of lessening damage in the future - ok, perhaps it's not too big a waste of money.

However, Thais are immersed in paranormal and metaphysical mind-sets - so it's not a stretch to see money get allocated to hocus pocus ways to predict earthquakes - none of which would do any good even if they worked. Imagine getting a 90 second warning of an impending earthquake - what are we going to do with that. Even if it were announcemed on a radio station - would any listeners take any immediate protective action?

As inferred by the title, 'PREDICT' could mean using talismans, sorcerers, bird poop patterns, discarded snake skins, .....there is no limit to the absurdities gullible people will embrace in such matters.

Let's hope the money is allocated to hard science - though I could think of a number of more worthy projects

from the 'Nobody Asked Me Dept.'

And this reply is exactly the problem with misleading headlines, subtly directing the course of responses. The article itself clearly states that the money is allocated to study fault lines; it even tells us which university is studying which fault line. Although the metaphysical does play a large role in the home and in pop culture it is not part of this study, nor is the goal of the study in fact "predicting earthquakes."

[chownah]

So then if this is not specifically to study earthquakes is this then the usual yearly budget for studying geologic fault lines in Thailand....I kind of doubt it. I doubt that this money will get allocated but if it does it probably will only fund a token effort with most of the money "disappearing" into some fissure somewhere.....what the heck are they going to do with 200 million baht to study geologic faults?

Perhaps playing on people's fears to grab some funds.

There's probably been less than 200 million baht in damages from eartquakes in Thailand in the last 100 years....tsunamis excluded of course.

[Old Man River]

So then if this is not specifically to study earthquakes is this then the usual yearly budget for studying geologic fault lines in Thailand....I kind of doubt it. I doubt that this money will get allocated but if it does it probably will only fund a token effort with most of the money "disappearing" into some fissure somewhere.....what the heck are they going to do with 200 million baht to study geologic faults?

Perhaps playing on people's fears to grab some funds.

There's probably been less than 200 million baht in damages from eartquakes in Thailand in the last 100 years....tsunamis excluded of course.

Given that Samith is the person asking for the money, I would think it is well worth while. When it comes to tsunamis, earthquakes and other potential natural disasters, this is the guy in Thailand that you would want to be involved at the outset. He actually cares and has the technical expertise to understand these issues.

[Tywais]

So then if this is not specifically to study earthquakes is this then the usual yearly budget for studying geologic fault lines in Thailand....I kind of doubt it. I doubt that this money will get allocated but if it does it probably will only fund a token effort with most of the money "disappearing" into some fissure somewhere.....what the heck are they going to do with 200 million baht to study geologic faults?

These are 4 major universities and research groups and I am somewhat familiar with these types of budgets - we are going through proposals for similar amounts now but also spread across several groups. These are nearly always 5 year budgets not annual. And your comments about 'disappearing' funds is, well, just inappropriate. There is accountability when it comes to government funds to universities and these will be no different. Including semi-annual reports, budget details, etc.

Perhaps playing on people's fears to grab some funds.

Nothing of the kind.

There's probably been less than 200 million baht in damages from eartquakes in Thailand in the last 100 years....tsunamis excluded of course.

The issue is not what damage has occurred but the potential of what could happen. A major hit in Chiangmai, BKK or others and that 200 million will look like peanuts. I'm sure the studies will include critical zone analysis, damage assessments, emergency preparedness programs, construction re-enforcement suggestions, etc.

If the studies and resulting safety implementations save lives, you think 200 million is too much?

I agree that the topic title is just wrong though.

[AndrewRuang]

it's a total waste of public fund, this is Thailand , not Indonesia. Thailand is not located on earthquake prone zone.

[Old Man River]

it's a total waste of public fund, this is Thailand , not Indonesia. Thailand is not located on earthquake prone zone.

Actually and unfortunately you are wrong. There are several faults too close for comfort and an earthquake does not have to be right underneath you to do a lot of damage. It hasn't happened yet. Sooner or later it will happen. Hopefully much later.

[John K]

it's a total waste of public fund, this is Thailand , not Indonesia. Thailand is not located on earthquake prone zone.

There is a fault that is fairly active that runs just east of the new airport. However based on the title of this thread it falls in the melting ice too far away to flood Thailand group.... at least in this day and age. Perhaps in the future where there is such a technology.

[Tywais]

it's a total waste of public fund, this is Thailand , not Indonesia. Thailand is not located on earthquake prone zone.

Might want to look at these statistics. I selected Chiangmai and 500km radius > USGS

[chownah]

So then if this is not specifically to study earthquakes is this then the usual yearly budget for studying geologic fault lines in Thailand....I kind of doubt it. I doubt that this money will get allocated but if it does it probably will only fund a token effort with most of the money "disappearing" into some fissure somewhere.....what the heck are they going to do with 200 million baht to study geologic faults?

These are 4 major universities and research groups and I am somewhat familiar with these types of budgets - we are going through proposals for similar amounts now but also spread across several groups. These are nearly always 5 year budgets not annual. And your comments about 'disappearing' funds is, well, just inappropriate. There is accountability when it comes to government funds to universities and these will be no different. Including semi-annual reports, budget details, etc.

Perhaps playing on people's fears to grab some funds.

Nothing of the kind.

There's probably been less than 200 million baht in damages from eartquakes in Thailand in the last 100 years....tsunamis excluded of course.

The issue is not what damage has occurred but the potential of what could happen. A major hit in Chiangmai, BKK or others and that 200 million will look like peanuts. I'm sure the studies will include critical zone analysis, damage assessments, emergency preparedness programs, construction re-enforcement suggestions, etc.

If the studies and resulting safety implementations save lives, you think 200 million is too much?

I agree that the topic title is just wrong though.

If you are corrct then not only is the title wrong but so is text within the article...it says this money is to study geologic faults....it says nothing and implies nothing about all the stuff you are "sure" will be included. Frankly I don't think you really have any information about what this money is supposed to be used for and you are talking through your hat.

IF IF IF IF IF the study saves lives? What study? We really don't even know what is going to be studied. The article says the money is to study geologic faults in Thailand....with the intent of PREDICTING EARTHQUAKES!!! but we really don't know about what will be studied and you seem to be "sure" about it.

IF IF IF IF IF the study is going to save lives then why spend the measly 200 million baht?...why not spend 2 billion baht?....or 20 billion baht?....if it is going to save lives.

What do you know about PREDICTING EARTHQUAKES?

If the money is to be spent for what the article describes then it is a waste of money in my opinion. Of course, I have already pointed out that I don't think it WILL be spent on what the article talks about....and it seems that you agree with me. The main difference between our posts is that you are viewing this through the rose colored glasses of academic optimism and I'm view it directly in the glare of synicism.

As to the issue of damages: Presently the state of the art in risk assessment for earthquakes is to determine damage from past earthquakes as a guide to what the risks are for the future. Using this ciriteria Thailand is not a very risk prone area. Can you find some risk assessment data for earthquake damage in Thailnad?......probably not and the reason is proabably that the risk is so low here.

Edited July 17, 2007 by chownah

[chownah]

One more thing.....the study is specifically for study INSIDE THAILAND (according to the article and many posters already question the accuracy of the article....but it is the topic of discussion never the less) while it seems like all the stronger earth movements mentioned on TV recently have originated from faults OUTSIDE THAILAND and so wouldn't be covered by the program mentioned here.

[Martin]

I cannot see how that headline can reasonably be derived from this news item.

How on earth do these totally-misleading headlines come about?

The main part of the difference between lives being lost and not being lost when an earthquake occurs seems to me to depend on whether buildings have been built according to an 'earthquake-resistant' Building Code, or not.

But it will, presumably, be more expensive to build in that earthquake resistance. So assessment of earthquake risk has big economic implications.

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

[chownah]

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

Actually if you want to assess the risk of damage from earthquake in an area that has been inhabited for the last 100 years or so then what you do first is determine how much earthquake damage has occurred historically and from this you can assess what the likelihood is of damage in the future. In some areas there has been so much historic seismic activity that the law requires considering earthquake resistent construction....in other areas there has been so little historic seismic activity that it is ignored. This is all done on a cost-benefit sort of analysis. Sure it would be great if the entire population of the earth was rich enough that all construction could be done to Southern California seismic standards but frankly there aren't very many places in the world rich enough to be able to afford it....and even then it is not earthquake proof....when the big one comes it will ALL fall down. No informed engineer will tell you that building to the strictest standards in place today will guarantee that a structure will survive the harshest quake possible....its all done on a cost/benefit sort of basis and frankly I don't know how much seismic damage (tsunamis excluded) has happened in Thailand historically but I haven't heard of any....this probably means that the benefits obtained by beefing up construction are probably very small since there isn't any damage in the first place...and...the very small benefit does not then warrent the cost of avoidance measures.

Edited July 17, 2007 by chownah

[Ricardo]

One might wonder what exactly the Geology-Departments of these universities currently do, if they need this extra funding, to study their local geological systems ?

And what exactly they can do - to directly study faults which are some 30km underground ? Sounds like an expensive deep hole, to me.

Perhaps it might fund trips to other earthquake-prone parts of the world, to examine the construction of 5-star hotels & other tourism-related buildings, in those places.

This would have the additional benefits of generating extra income for Thai Airways, and sale of Baht to pay hotel & overseas-expense-bills, for the experts travelling, thus assisting the currency crisis.

Come to think of it - I am an 'expert' on fault-study. Does anyone know how I can sign-up to 'assist' with these studies ? For a purely-nominal per-diem fee, naturally.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Ricardo

[lazeeboy]

One might wonder what exactly the Geology-Departments of these universities currently do, if they need this extra funding, to study their local geological systems ?

And what exactly they can do - to directly study faults which are some 30km underground ? Sounds like an expensive deep hole, to me.

Perhaps it might fund trips to other earthquake-prone parts of the world, to examine the construction of 5-star hotels & other tourism-related buildings, in those places.

This would have the additional benefits of generating extra income for Thai Airways, and sale of Baht to pay hotel & overseas-expense-bills, for the experts travelling, thus assisting the currency crisis.

Come to think of it - I am an 'expert' on fault-study. Does anyone know how I can sign-up to 'assist' with these studies ? For a purely-nominal per-diem fee, naturally.

would an earthquake do 200 millions worth of damage

[Old Man River]

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

Actually if you want to assess the risk of damage from earthquake in an area that has been inhabited for the last 100 years or so then what you do first is determine how much earthquake damage has occurred historically and from this you can assess what the likelihood is of damage in the future. In some areas there has been so much historic seismic activity that the law requires considering earthquake resistent construction....in other areas there has been so little historic seismic activity that it is ignored.

And the problem with studying fault lines is? Why is the past 100 years the benchmark? Isn't this the same attitude people took about the possibility of a tsunami hitting Thailand?

[Ricardo]

One might wonder what exactly the Geology-Departments of these universities currently do, if they need this extra funding, to study their local geological systems ?

And what exactly they can do - to directly study faults which are some 30km underground ? Sounds like an expensive deep hole, to me.

Perhaps it might fund trips to other earthquake-prone parts of the world, to examine the construction of 5-star hotels & other tourism-related buildings, in those places.

This would have the additional benefits of generating extra income for Thai Airways, and sale of Baht to pay hotel & overseas-expense-bills, for the experts travelling, thus assisting the currency crisis.

Come to think of it - I am an 'expert' on fault-study. Does anyone know how I can sign-up to 'assist' with these studies ? For a purely-nominal per-diem fee, naturally.

would an earthquake do 200 millions worth of damage

Would the study prevent the earthquake ?

Buildings over 5-storeys here in C.M. already have higher standards, in theory, because of the local risk of quakes.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Ricardo

[Old Man River]

One might wonder what exactly the Geology-Departments of these universities currently do, if they need this extra funding, to study their local geological systems ?

And what exactly they can do - to directly study faults which are some 30km underground ? Sounds like an expensive deep hole, to me.

Perhaps it might fund trips to other earthquake-prone parts of the world, to examine the construction of 5-star hotels & other tourism-related buildings, in those places.

This would have the additional benefits of generating extra income for Thai Airways, and sale of Baht to pay hotel & overseas-expense-bills, for the experts travelling, thus assisting the currency crisis.

Come to think of it - I am an 'expert' on fault-study. Does anyone know how I can sign-up to 'assist' with these studies ? For a purely-nominal per-diem fee, naturally.

would an earthquake do 200 millions worth of damage

Would the study prevent the earthquake ?

Buildings over 5-storeys here in C.M. already have higher standards, in theory, because of the local risk of quakes.

Prevent the eathquake? No, of course not, but perhaps the building requirements are not as strict in other cities in Thailand. Any info about a potential natural disaster prior to it occurring is valuable. In Thailand, normally the disaster has to occur prior to anyone thinking about looking into it.

Samith who would be spearheading this study was called the crazy man for telling colleagues in the Met. Dept. that a tsunami devastating Thailand was possible. As far as I am concerned any info on a potential natural disaster is important.

[chownah]

One might wonder what exactly the Geology-Departments of these universities currently do, if they need this extra funding, to study their local geological systems ?

And what exactly they can do - to directly study faults which are some 30km underground ? Sounds like an expensive deep hole, to me.

Perhaps it might fund trips to other earthquake-prone parts of the world, to examine the construction of 5-star hotels & other tourism-related buildings, in those places.

This would have the additional benefits of generating extra income for Thai Airways, and sale of Baht to pay hotel & overseas-expense-bills, for the experts travelling, thus assisting the currency crisis.

Come to think of it - I am an 'expert' on fault-study. Does anyone know how I can sign-up to 'assist' with these studies ? For a purely-nominal per-diem fee, naturally.

would an earthquake do 200 millions worth of damage

In Thailand, no. There are lots of small earthquakes in Thailand and mostly they do absolutely no damage. The worst damage I have heard of so far is a few roof tiles falling off of an immigration building and an ancient building collapsing....but the ancient building collapsing is due more to the dilapidated condition because of lack of maintenance...so much so that the public was not allowed inside anyway...it was a disaster just waiting to happen.

[chownah]

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

Actually if you want to assess the risk of damage from earthquake in an area that has been inhabited for the last 100 years or so then what you do first is determine how much earthquake damage has occurred historically and from this you can assess what the likelihood is of damage in the future. In some areas there has been so much historic seismic activity that the law requires considering earthquake resistent construction....in other areas there has been so little historic seismic activity that it is ignored.

And the problem with studying fault lines is? Why is the past 100 years the benchmark? Isn't this the same attitude people took about the possibility of a tsunami hitting Thailand?

Notice that "100 years or so"....I was not trying to indicate that this is a benchmark but you need a lot of years of history to be able to make a meaningful risk analysis and my gut feeling is that 100 years is probably a good minimum to start with. I think if you look at the historic records for any major city in the world that has had a devastating earthquake in known history you will find that the record overall indicates clearly that there is a high likelihood of this happening as witnessed by multiple strong seismic events happening on a regular basis.

Nothing wrong with studying fault lines, I just think that the 200 million baht as a special budget earmarked for studying fault lines with the purpose of predicting earthquakes is bogus and a boondoggle and is trying to get funding by playing to peoples paranoia. Predicting earthquakes is mostly ineffective and the method to reliably predict earthquakes does not yet exist....some progress is being made from what I understand but it is still way way too unreliable to have any practical value. Thailand would do better to wait for the experts in the field to improve their abilities before jumping on the band wagon. I don't have much faith in Thai academia's ability to do pure research into earthquake prediction.

[Old Man River]

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

Actually if you want to assess the risk of damage from earthquake in an area that has been inhabited for the last 100 years or so then what you do first is determine how much earthquake damage has occurred historically and from this you can assess what the likelihood is of damage in the future. In some areas there has been so much historic seismic activity that the law requires considering earthquake resistent construction....in other areas there has been so little historic seismic activity that it is ignored.

And the problem with studying fault lines is? Why is the past 100 years the benchmark? Isn't this the same attitude people took about the possibility of a tsunami hitting Thailand?

Notice that "100 years or so"....I was not trying to indicate that this is a benchmark but you need a lot of years of history to be able to make a meaningful risk analysis and my gut feeling is that 100 years is probably a good minimum to start with. I think if you look at the historic records for any major city in the world that has had a devastating earthquake in known history you will find that the record overall indicates clearly that there is a high likelihood of this happening as witnessed by multiple strong seismic events happening on a regular basis.

Nothing wrong with studying fault lines, I just think that the 200 million baht as a special budget earmarked for studying fault lines with the purpose of predicting earthquakes is bogus and a boondoggle and is trying to get funding by playing to peoples paranoia. Predicting earthquakes is mostly ineffective and the method to reliably predict earthquakes does not yet exist....some progress is being made from what I understand but it is still way way too unreliable to have any practical value. Thailand would do better to wait for the experts in the field to improve their abilities before jumping on the band wagon. I don't have much faith in Thai academia's ability to do pure research into earthquake prediction.

You have missed the point already made on this thread. The title of predicting earthquakes was made in error. This thread is about studying fault lines only. It is to help ascertain IF there is an earthquake, what and where is the damage likely to be. From this study, building codes might be changed to mitigate damage in other areas apart from just CM. This is important to those of us that are in areas that recent discoveries show may also be at risk. Cities like Bangkok, where I and my family live.

They need to go back more than 100 years. The Australian government went back much farther in their financial modeling which allowed them to predict the possibility of a devastating tsunami to hit in roughly the same area that the Dec. 2004 tsunami hit. Unfortunately, their published article was in Oct. 2004, which didn't allow for the proper amount of discussion by decision makers prior to their countries being devastated. It was too new and too scary to think about it, even though it confirmed what Samith had been saying all along.

Now we have Samith saying that there area possible problems from earthquakes in other areas of Thailand and the naysayers are saying the study is too expensive. No it isn't. Given the possible damage to property and lives, it is dirt cheap.

[chownah]

I would accept that the start of such assessment of earthquake risk is to study the characteristics of geologic faults and where they lie.

Actually if you want to assess the risk of damage from earthquake in an area that has been inhabited for the last 100 years or so then what you do first is determine how much earthquake damage has occurred historically and from this you can assess what the likelihood is of damage in the future. In some areas there has been so much historic seismic activity that the law requires considering earthquake resistent construction....in other areas there has been so little historic seismic activity that it is ignored.

And the problem with studying fault lines is? Why is the past 100 years the benchmark? Isn't this the same attitude people took about the possibility of a tsunami hitting Thailand?

Notice that "100 years or so"....I was not trying to indicate that this is a benchmark but you need a lot of years of history to be able to make a meaningful risk analysis and my gut feeling is that 100 years is probably a good minimum to start with. I think if you look at the historic records for any major city in the world that has had a devastating earthquake in known history you will find that the record overall indicates clearly that there is a high likelihood of this happening as witnessed by multiple strong seismic events happening on a regular basis.

Nothing wrong with studying fault lines, I just think that the 200 million baht as a special budget earmarked for studying fault lines with the purpose of predicting earthquakes is bogus and a boondoggle and is trying to get funding by playing to peoples paranoia. Predicting earthquakes is mostly ineffective and the method to reliably predict earthquakes does not yet exist....some progress is being made from what I understand but it is still way way too unreliable to have any practical value. Thailand would do better to wait for the experts in the field to improve their abilities before jumping on the band wagon. I don't have much faith in Thai academia's ability to do pure research into earthquake prediction.

You have missed the point already made on this thread. The title of predicting earthquakes was made in error. This thread is about studying fault lines only. It is to help ascertain IF there is an earthquake, what and where is the damage likely to be. From this study, building codes might be changed to mitigate damage in other areas apart from just CM. This is important to those of us that are in areas that recent discoveries show may also be at risk. Cities like Bangkok, where I and my family live.

They need to go back more than 100 years. The Australian government went back much farther in their financial modeling which allowed them to predict the possibility of a devastating tsunami to hit in roughly the same area that the Dec. 2004 tsunami hit. Unfortunately, their published article was in Oct. 2004, which didn't allow for the proper amount of discussion by decision makers prior to their countries being devastated. It was too new and too scary to think about it, even though it confirmed what Samith had been saying all along.

Now we have Samith saying that there area possible problems from earthquakes in other areas of Thailand and the naysayers are saying the study is too expensive. No it isn't. Given the possible damage to property and lives, it is dirt cheap.

I think you have missed the point already made on this thread. You don't need to go study fault lines to determine what areas may be at risk....what you need to study is the history of earthquake damages in the area. If you want to make a risk assessment of possible damages from seismic events you study how much damage has happened in the past. If there is no damage then studying the faults is pointless....why study a fault that has never caused damage? If I am correct in my assertion that there has never been serious damage from any seismic event (barring tsunamis) in Thailand then allocating special funds for this type of study is a waste of money. I do believe that studying geology is important and I would hope that every year there is money allocated to the Geology Dept. of various universities for this...and I would assume that some of this money would get spent on studying faults since this is geology...I could be wrong on this though.

[Old Man River]

...what you need to study is the history of earthquake damages in the area.

I get it now. You are the expert on what should and should not be studied as it relates to earthquakes, not Samith who is asking for the grant. Perhaps you can call him and help him out.

[chownah]

...what you need to study is the history of earthquake damages in the area.

I get it now. You are the expert on what should and should not be studied as it relates to earthquakes, not Samith who is asking for the grant. Perhaps you can call him and help him out.

I wouldn't say that I am an expert but I have had some experience dealing with seismic issues. I am presently pursuing a 100 million baht grant to create a presentation to present to to Samith explaining where he has gone wrong with his request for money.....the main line that I use in promoting this project is that it will save the country 100 million baht.

[chownah]

If you want to learn how seismic risk is determined then you might want to take a look here:

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/geologichazards/8NCEE-000416.pdf

The article is titled "UNDERSTANDING SEISMIC HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENTS: AN EXAMPLE IN THE NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE OF THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES"

It talks about how risk assessment is done just as the title implies. Faults are mentioned briefly in that historic seismic events are associated with fault movement so distance from an existing fault which has caused historic events can be used as a risk factor but the key in this analysis is analyzing the historic frequency of ground movements.....look for yourself and determine for yourself if you think that studying faults is a primary activity in determining seismic risk.

[Old Man River]

...what you need to study is the history of earthquake damages in the area.

I get it now. You are the expert on what should and should not be studied as it relates to earthquakes, not Samith who is asking for the grant. Perhaps you can call him and help him out.

I wouldn't say that I am an expert but I have had some experience dealing with seismic issues. I am presently pursuing a 100 million baht grant to create a presentation to present to to Samith explaining where he has gone wrong with his request for money.....the main line that I use in promoting this project is that it will save the country 100 million baht.

I am not sure if you are really serious in this, but in this country studies about potential natural disasters don't normally occur until after the natural disaster occurs. Samith is one of the few that cares about safety and prevention and is not interested in lining his pockets. He was right about the potential of a giant tsunami devastating Thailand and now he wants to look at the potential for disaster from earthquakes. He's the man and the man should be supported.