(February 18, 2009) As speculation has grown over whether the Sichuan earthquake, which killed 80,000 people last May and left more than 5 million people homeless, was triggered by the 315 million tonnes of water held in the Zipingpu dam reservoir, so too has press coverage of that theory. Here, Probe International provides a roundup of what that coverage is saying.

Anyone looking for a single comprehensive story on the topic need look no further than the online version of Wired Magazine. Online Editor Betsy Mason provides a concise and complete history of the debate as well as a layman’s explanation of reservoir-induced seismicity, the scientific theory that has been used by scientists worldwide to connect the Zipingpu reservoir with the 7.9 magnitude Sichuan earthquake. Through interviews with a variety of experts, Mason explains the likely rationale behind China’s refusal to allow scientists access to Zipingpu’s seismic and reservoir-level data from the period surrounding the earthquake: the government is afraid if any links between the Zipingpu reservoir and such a powerful earthquake can be proven scientifically, that the subsequent uproar will make it far more difficult to pursue the multitude of dam construction projects that have been planned.

China has more dams than any other country, some 88,000 of varying size have so far been completed. Fully half of the world’s large dams, 22,000 to be exact, exist within China. The majority of these projects were constructed recently and speedily, mostly in the last few decades.

By laying out all the primary facts in the first few paragraphs, coverage by the Associated Press is an excellent starting point for readers new to the debate. The article goes on to cite a bevy of experts illustrating the range of opinions in the scientific community over exactly what role the Zipingpu dam reservoir played in last May’s catastrophic seismic event. Earthquakes are thought to be “triggered” by fluctuations in the reservoir level, by the weight of the reservoir, when the “stress field” is perturbed by the reservoir, and when water infiltrates the rock and significantly increases the rock’s “pore pressure.” Experts also argue that reservoirs don’t “make” earthquakes, they merely change the timing, the magnitude or the location of a quake that was already waiting to happen. One thing all the experts seem to agree on: further study is essential to assess any potential risks to public safety.

The Wall Street Journal provides a clear and understandable explanation of how a dam’s reservoir can induce an earthquake and provides stirring examples from all over the world of it having happened dozens of times in the past. Their coverage draws out the important point that further study is needed to determine the seismic risks associated with the construction of large dams. Originally reported in English by Probe International several months ago, this story also points out that a group of 62 Chinese environmentalists and scientists have already appealed to the Chinese government for a moratorium on dam construction in the region, pending further study of the risks. The Chinese government still rejects the possibility of any risk and is planning on moving forward with many hydroelectric projects.

For those who prefer to get their information direct from the blogosphere, Scientific American 60-Second Science blogger Jordan Lite makes use of web-only data to provide information to readers that can’t be found in the print media. Excerpts from the personal blog of Christian Klose provide valuable insights into how Klose came up with his theory and specifically which aspects of it cannot be tested until China releases more data on Zipingpu to the scientific community. Klose was the second researcher to propose a link between the Zipingpu dam and last May’s deadly quake, the first having been a Chinese engineer named Fan Xiao, who theorized a connection immediately in the weeks following the event (read Probe International’s translation of Fan Xiao’s original interview here). This story also features several added comments, common for online news, that will give readers an idea of how the public at large is reacting to recent revelations that China’s worst natural disaster in recent history may not have been ‘natural’ at all.

Related stories from other sources

·        Evan Osnos’ blog in The New Yorker

·        Probe International Executive Director Patricia Adams reacts to coverage by The New York Times

·        Tania Branigan’s coverage in the U.K. paper Guardian

·        Olivia Boyd in Building Magazine, a construction industry publication

·        Online environmental news site Terra Daily

·        Malcolm Moore in the U.K. paper Daily Telegraph

·        Eliza Strickland in Discover Magazine

Jameson Berkow, Probe International, February 18, 2009