海城地震预报是一个国际笑柄 作者：寻正

海城地震预报是一个国际笑柄

作者：寻正

　　中国人向来爱激发雄心、征服世界，在外来科技的帮助下，国人已经征服了
蜀道，上得了青天，但离预测地震，还远得不是一般。中国的地震学，远比医学
领域更加混乱，在医学领域内，现代医学骨架已经建立，伪科学中医节节败退，
晚景凄凉，伪科学的代言人跳得高，是因为他们各自面临巨大的困难，有时候嚎
叫，也是舒解内心压力的一种方式〖读大学时研究心理学的发现〗，但在地震学
与地震防治上，中国地震学界，尚缺乏一个有效的科学骨架，一个有良心、良知、
一定学术水平的正道，并未清晰地呈现在地震学者与公众面前。

　　中国的地震预测研究，最早也只能归结于在1966年连续暴发的大地震的影响
下建立起来的，美国日本上百年的地震预测研究，中国短短10年时间就超越了，
在1975年放了一颗世界卫星——海城大地震的预测，取得了美日梦想了百年的成
功，赞叹。海城地震的副作用，是从此激发了中国地震学界不可遏制的骄傲情绪，
让中国地震相关的学问，从此蒙尘，再无洁净之日。海城预报对海城人民来说是
一件幸事，但对中国地震学来说，恐怕恶劣的影响要极长的时间才能消除，中国
地震学家们需要极长的时间才会学会科学地思考问题。

　　中国人为什么能取得地震预测术上的伟大胜利？用海城预报时代的总结性言
论来说，是“中国人民群众群策群力、毛泽东思想的哲学指导、由工农兵革命者
汗水与智慧的劳动结晶”，地震学家可算可不算，那时地震学界稍有能力的都在
劳改，剩下的能力一般的50%的时间在造反，30%的时间在研究说什么样的屁话合
适，一不小心，就变阴阳头了，在地震预测研究上主要力量都是一批想当然的造
反派，无政治小辫的后顾之忧，唯一的遗憾是，他们不懂地质学地震学。寻正向
来爱直言，毫无顾忌地把中国地震预测术取得的一系列“光辉成就”归结于脸厚，
其它的，无非是用屁话堆砌的花环。

　　文化大革命，诞生了一大批中国土产地震预测专家，至今这些人仍然阴魂不
散，成天地缠着中国地震局，想要在中国地震局在中国人民那里骗来的科研经费
中分得一杯羹，美其名曰，要为国家分忧。地震不可预测，这么一个显而易见的
科学结论，中国地震学家们群起反对，去年中国地震局局长陈建民在中央电视台
《决策者说》栏目中作客时，当主持人问道地震究竟能不能预报时，陈建民说，
“要简单地回答这个问题，应该是肯定的，地震是能够预报的”，又说，“为什
么说地震还是能够预报的？因为我们从1966年邢台地震之后，中国走了40年的地
震预报的道路，这么多年来，通过几代人的不懈努力，特别是从科学技术方面不
断深入研究，通过这么多地震震例的总结，至少我们现在已经能够对某种类型的
地震在一定程度上做出预报，比较典型的例子就是1975年2月4号海城7.3级地震，
我们震前做了非常准确的预报，这次地震取得了非常好的减灾效益。专家们预计，
这次地震如果没有预报，应该是死亡十万人，但实际上海城地震只死亡了1300人，
大大减轻了人员的伤亡和损失”。

　　既然地震能够预报，唐山大地震一记响亮的耳光还震不醒陈建民局长，那么，
请对汶川上百万居民负责！对四川数万亡灵负责！强烈呼吁撤消陈建民中国地震
局局长职位，地震能预测，8级大地震在事前连屁都不放一个，还压制民间科学
家预测地震的正当言论，不把大寨地震学家耿庆国的准确预报告之于民，造成巨
大生命财产损失！请按渎职罪审判陈建民（生命与健康损失远超过郑筱萸的贪污
与渎职的后果）。

　　中国地震局系统、中国地震学界乌龙不断，先有翁文波院士的可公度法这种
算命垃圾冒认地震预测，后有耿庆国之流民科代表强认地震预测，再有中国首席
地震预报员孙士鋐不懂临震预警，还有陈运泰院士读不懂全球知名地震学家盖勒
教授的反对地震预测的建议，他们无一不宣称中国地震预测走在世界前列，如果
举例，无不列举海城预报为经典中国案例，作为中国地震预测术成功的佐证。中
国地震学界怎么啦？中国地震局预测司应该改名叫伪科学司，有本事，晒一晒几
十年预测的业绩罢！纯粹是浪费纳税人钱财。

　　附录一是国际知名地震学家盖勒（RJ Geller）教授在《国际地质物理学》
杂志1997年第131期上发表一篇回顾性论文中对海城地震的描述（该论文引用多
达满满7页的文献，估计超过500篇），看看国际地震学界如何看待中国奇迹的吧！

　　海城地震预报，之所以是一个国际笑柄，因为它国际知名，成为许多人被嘲
笑的把柄，哪些人被嘲笑了呢？

　　第一位被嘲笑的是美国日本等国强大的地震预测研究阵营，国家投入无数，
结果人类第一个成功预报大的地震居然被中国的土八路夺到了手，从此美国日本
地震预测研究大受打击，美国一生气不做了，日本拖了二十来年，也认栽了。海
城地震预报成功，恰好证明地震是不可以预报的，研究投入再多都没有用。

　　第二位被嘲笑的是中国政府，政治干预科学，惨不忍睹，连带着中国地震学
界在国际学术界缺乏公信力，随便报个什么别人都要疑神疑鬼，唐山大地震连死
了多少人都没搞清楚，言外之意，中国人难以相信。

　　第三位被嘲笑的是中国的地震预测专家，撞到狗屎运了，无论是基于酸葡萄
心理也好，事实也罢，预测是不假的。中国人在地震预测上的狗屎运还不断地撞，
可惜别人除了海城地震，其它的都不认。中国人向来爱有悲剧式的豪情：人类第
一次预测到了大地震并避开了其危害，以中国地震预测术为代表的中国地震学该
站起来了吧！可惜海城地震预测的巨大荣誉仍旧无法使中国的地震学在国际地震
学界有一星半点的影响，海城地震国际地震学界的反省居然是学习中国地震专家
从群众那里得到帮助，这种冷幽默持了自大心态的中国地震学界是读不懂的，事
实上美国日本根本就不在乎中国经验，更是一个现实的嘲笑。

　　第四位被嘲笑的是中国人，在地震预测术横行的年代，居然地震预测术比地
震还要让人多受难，海城地震住在旅馆里的军官们居然得靠民兵与警察赶出来，
可见经历多次狼来了的人对中国的地震预报的信任程度，准确预报居然也可以有
上千人死亡，上万人受伤，说明了中国地震预测术在民间有多大的公信力。

　　第五位被嘲笑的是美国派出的中国海城地震考验团，相信中国人提供的事实
居然也受到“Too simple, too naive”的指责，害得别人一个劲儿帮阶级敌人
说话，是真的，不假，中国人确实预测到了地震，尽管撞到狗屎运，但人类第一
次预测到了地震并采取了合适的行动是不假的。为什么中国人不事先发表预测结
果呢？因为那样的话就太多了，一一比较，绝大部分都不成功，那可是很丢脸的。

　　第六位被嘲笑的是中国地震局，厚颜无耻宣称取得了预测海城地震的伟大胜
利，却连点死亡人数与受难人数都不不会，伤亡一万多人，居然数了十三年。中
国地震局，跟它所发的地震预报一样不可信。

　　针对海城地震，按国际地震学界主流意见，认为中国人运气好是大多数，要
认为中国人有水平，只能靠臆想，盖勒教授在成功预测上加引号，就表明他对这
些成功预测的不信任——不相信可以重复，该观点反映在全文的讨论中。海城地
震发生在任何国家，预测中的可能性都极大，是由其本身特点决定的，是一个无
法重复的模式，完全不能代表地震预测的水平，宣称海城地震代表中国地震预报
水平，就是另一个国际笑料。

　　盖勒教授在讨论海城地震特别提到中国的唐山地震，那时汶川地震还未发生，
恐怕现在要加上汶川地震了，不厌其烦地多次列举唐山地震死亡率，显示了中国
人及中国学术界给别人留下了多大的信任空间。

　　不要再在海城地震预报中做梦了，唐山血的教训在宣布海城预报大胜利一年
后就发生了，还不能令人清醒的话，那么今年汶川大震再次发威，中国地震局如
果还需要更多的证据，那就显得太没有人性了。地震真能预测，中国民众应该向
中国地震局与吃闲饭的中国地震学家们问责。

　　科学是一步一个脚印走出来的，跟沙滩上捡贝壳不一样。

附录一：盖勒教授在地震预测回顾一文（Earthquake prediction: a critical
review）中对海城预报的评述（4章1节全文）

4 Claims of “Successful Predictions”

4.1 1975 Haicheng, China, earthquake

A swarm of earthquakes, the largest M=4.8, occurred 70 km NE of
Haicheng on 22 December 1974 (Raleigh et al. 1977). An unsuccessful
prediction was issued for the Yinkow area, about 100 km west of
Haicheng, at this time (Adams 1976). A prediction of an M=5.5-6.0
event in the first six months of 1975 for a wide area that included
Haicheng was issued on 13 January 1975. Based on a swarm (largest event:
ML=4.7, 4 February, 7:51am) that began on 3 February 1975, a general
warning was issued at 2pm on 4 February for Yinkow and Haicheng
Counties to expect an earthquake within two days. The M = 7.3 Haicheng
event occurred at 7:36pm on 4 February 1975. Seismicity before the
main shock was discussed by Scholz (1977), Wu et al. (1978), Xu et al.
(1982) and Jones et al. (1982). Deng et al. (1981) discussed reports
of anomalies in ground water and animal behavior.

Detailed information on what warnings were issued is apparently
unavailable in English (e.g. Zhu & Ge 1983; Ma 1990, pp. 4-5). Chu
(1976, p. 19) said the Provincial Revolutionary Committee made
telephone calls at 10am on 4 February saying there was “a possibility
of [a] strong earthquake in Haicheng Yingkao districts”, but the
actions taken are not clear. Chu added that a conference for
earthquake disaster prevention was held at 2.00pm, at which the
instructions of the provincial revolutionary committee were
transmitted and duties were assigned, but gave no details.

The claim that the Haicheng earthquake was “successfully predicted”
is widely accepted. Lay & Wallace (1995, p. 493) stated:

“The 1975 Haicheng earthquake (ML=7.3)…was the first major
earthquake to be predicted. …The earthquake was very destructive, but
almost no one died.”

Hammond (1976) reported in Science that “very few people were killed”,
and Davies (1975) reported in Nature (see also Anonymous 1975b) that
there were “few fatalities”. Savarenskij & Nersesov (1978, p. 83)
said:

“…before the severe shock of 4 February 1975 (magnitude over 7), the
population was evacuated from buildings in a densely populated area.
Despite considerable damage to a number of inhabited localities, the
population itself came out unscathed.”

However, Lomnitz (1994, p. 25) stated:
“It has been widely claimed that Haicheng was ‘evacuated’ before
the earthquake, though no such claim can actually be found in Chinese
sources.”

Quan (1988) stated that there were 1328 deaths and 16 980 injuries due
to the Haicheng earthquake. The large disparity between the reports of
1975 and 1988 casts doubt on claims for the Haicheng prediction.

The Cultural Revolution was still taking place in 1975. Raleigh et al.
(1977) described the atmosphere:
“…earthquake prediction was established and advertised as a national
policy of the highest priority. …Earthquake prediction was not a
minor experiment, viewed with a skeptical eye in ruling circles. Indeed,
belief in earthquake prediction was made an element of ideological
orthodoxy that distinguished the true party liners from right wing
deviationists. Repeatedly, we heard disbelief in earthquake prediction
attributed to bourgeois class interests. …And criticism of those who
doubt the feasibility of earthquake prediction was linked to everyone’
s duty to criticize the idealist concepts and revisionist lines of
Confucius, Liu Shaoqi, Lin Piao, and, retrospectively, [Deng
Xiao-ping].’

A Chinese prediction researcher, Chu (1976), said:
“On 4 February 1975 at 19:36 Peking time, a strong earthquake of
M=7.3 shook our nation’s Lianoning Province, Haicheng-Yingkao district.
Given the forecast of this violent earthquake, however, the Party, the
government, the armed forces and the people of the affected province
immediately took effective prevention measures under the consolidated
leadership of Lianoning Province Committee of the Chinese Communist
Party, thus greatly minimizing the damage of this densely populated
area. This was the very fruit of our great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution and Anti-Lin Piao Anti-Confucius movement, as well as the
vivid and successful demonstration of the superiority of the
socialistic system. It was indeed a great victory of Chairman Mao’s
revolutionary line.”

Some disasters in China were concealed during the Cultural Revolution.
As many as 230 000 people died in the collapse of two dams in southern
China in August 1975, but this tragedy was only revealed 20 years
later (“China: History warns”. The Economist, 25 February 1995).

Huebsch (1978) criticized Raleigh et al. (1977):
“[Raleigh et al. 1977 display] an uncritical and naive attitude
toward the alleged accomplishments of Chinese Communist seismology
under the guidance of Chairman Mao. The reports of successful
prediction would be more convincing had they been noted before, rather
than after, the event, and had they been made by visitors fully free
to travel and able to converse in the language of the country. The
Americans may have received a Potemkin village tour of a type often
provided foreign visitors to totalitarian countries.’

AGU’s Foreign Secretary (Kisslinger 1978) replied:
“Mr. Huebsch misjudges the perspicacity and sophistication of the
American Haicheng Earthquake Study Delegation. The members of the
group were carefully selected for their ability to gather and
critically evaluate all information that might be provided by their
hosts about the successful prediction of the Haicheng earthquake.
. . .
“On the basis of all reports, including the findings of the group
responsible for the Eos article and my own observations while in China
in 1974, I personally have no doubts whatsoever that the Chinese did
successfully predict this earthquake and take actions based on that
prediction to reduce losses of life and property. In view of the
totally empirical approach of the Chinese, there may well have been a
great deal of luck involved in the amazing accuracy of the prediction.
This does not reduce the significance of the first real success
achieved anywhere in predicting a destructive earthquake.’

At least 240 000 people (the official figure) died in the 1976 Tangshan,
China, earthquake, which was not predicted. Norman (1977) said “more
than 600 000” were killed. Spall (1977) quoted reports of 600 000
deaths, and Wallace (1983) quoted reports of 650 000 to 800 000 deaths.
Retrospective claims of precursors (e.g. Lomnitz & Lomnitz 1978; Chu
et ml. 1996) were made after the Tangshan earthquake.

A leader in Nature immediately after the Tangshan earthquake
(Anonymous 1976) commented as follows:
“Animal behavior as a predictor has now, of course, become an object
of popular fascination the world over. For one thing, the jumpiness of
cats, dogs and snakes can be understood by a much wider public than
can fluctuations in the velocity of elastic waves; for another, it
does bring science down to a folksy level at which the good amateur
observer is just as valued as the professional. There are few branches
of science where this is true today, and it is excellent news that
amateur involvement has been given such a good name by the Chinese.
…
“What the Chinese have succeeded in doing, and what this most recent
calamity will certainly not dissuade them from continuing, is to raise
the consciousness of people to unusual phenomena, even to the extent
of encouraging them to file reports. This is a lesson that should not
be lost in California, the Soviet Union, Japan, the Middle East, or
other places scourged by earthquakes. There are encouraging signs that
at least the inhabitants of San Francisco and Los Angeles are prepared
to learn from the Chinese experience that the experts need all the
help they can get.”

Coe (1971), Bolt (1974), Press (1975c), Press et al. (1975), Shapley
(1976b), Gu (1981), Anonymous (1982), Russ & Johnson (1985), Chen
(1986), Tang (1988), Chen, Chen & Wang (1992), Mei (1992), Zhang &
Zhang (1992), Gao & Gao (1995), Hao (1996) and Wu (1997) also
discussed prediction research in China. Claims of successful
predictions (other than Haicheng) were discussed by Press (1975c),
Norman (1977), Li & Mervis (1996) and Li & Kerr (1997), but the
details are unclear.

(XYS20080528)

◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.dropin.org)(xys-reader.