Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
Brought to us by The Onion San Francisco Historians Condemn 1906 Earthquake Deniers:
The 1906 Earthquake Deniers, a group reviled by Californians and scholars alike, held three days of lectures and roundtable discussions over what they call a "century-long hoax" of exaggerated seismic activity in the Bay area, and part of a conspiracy to bring the World's Fair to San Francisco in 1915. Historians protested the conference, saying the organization's statements denying any major seismic activity in 1906 are reprehensible and out of line with all available geologic data from the time. ... "If an earthquake of that size really did strike downtown San Francisco, then where is all the rubble?" read one pamphlet, entitled "After$hock$: Truth, Lies, And The Business Of Earthquakes," obtained by reporters. "Where are these alleged 3,000 dead? And why does the mayor refuse to answer questions about the fires that mysteriously started moments after the supposed 'earthquake' occurred? Ask yourself: Who is he protecting?"The early 1906 Earthquake Denier movement began shortly after World War I, when historian Michael P. Harrison published an article alleging that the Chinese government and San Francisco Mayor Eugene Schmitz devised a plan to purposely light the city on fire to acquire funds for a new Chinatown. The modern day movement, however, gained momentum in 1971 with Professor David Compson's controversial book Earthquake?, which argued that the inability to freely question the disaster was "the equivalent of mental rape."
Mental rape. Awesome. They even included the persecution complex.
And for someone who might be moving to San Fran in a month, this hit a bit close to home:
"San Franciscans need to wake up and smell the lies and deceits they've been fed for the last century," Earthquake Denier Jared Meeder said. "If a giant earthquake did actually occur, why would anyone in their right mind rebuild a city knowing full well that another earthquake could easily come along and destroy it again?""Think about it," Meeder added.
Thanks The Way Things Break and NVCC Geo Blog.
Environment
Comments
SF. Or San Francisco. But never San Fran.
Posted by: blf | March 11, 2009 5:31 PM
"If a giant earthquake did actually occur, why would anyone in their right mind rebuild a city knowing full well that another earthquake could easily come along and destroy it again?"
And why would anyone in their right mind choose to live in the city? Or the surrounding Bay Area, for that matter...
Alas, most people here in the SF Bay Area don't understand the danger. The ones that do and live here anyway -- like me -- probably are at least a little crazy.
Posted by: Karen | March 11, 2009 6:42 PM
Ah, Poe's law.. (I didn't see it was The Onion...)
Posted by: TH | March 12, 2009 9:03 AM
Full of win and awesome, as usual. This is right up there with scientists flocking to see the miraculous image of Darwin in a wall stain.
Posted by: Frasque | March 12, 2009 11:08 AM
But Karen....why owuld anyone live anywhere near a coastline? Global warming and all? Or in much of the gulf Coast area of the south-there is a greater chance of hurricanes than there is of major seismic events? Or, Seattle? Add seismic activity to a chance of TSUNAMI danger...hoo boy. Or, much of the Midwest. Some scientists think Global "warming" will make tornadoes more common. And...the climate is certainly bad...more people died in Chicago during a recent heat wave than did in the 1989 quake.
I read somewhere that the only "safe" place in the United States is Buffalo, New York. I will accept the risks :)
(An inland Bay Area resident....hopefully the levees failing won't affect my town)
Posted by: Brian | March 16, 2009 4:36 PM