I think in part this is because of a mode of discourse based on questions by assertion: I know a small factoid, I got it from IFLS, I repeat it here, there is an implicit question.
"so if we dumped 30 megatonnes of concrete over the fault we'd alter the compression ratio of the subsoils and this would stop the coming mega-quake" because I read once that big buildings alter readings on somebody's seismograph, somewhere, once.
Mind you, geologists do it by reverse: I nice one I know from U Qld told me the economic upsides of the San Diego quake were net positive. I'm not sure all economists agree!
"Economic upsides" are directly related to the values assigned. If no value is assigned to death and trauma, it's quite possible that a net positive is recorded by knocking down a bunch of old building and highways and rebuilding them.
However, if we decide to jump-start economic development by knocking down infrastructure and rebuilding it, I'd suggest we make sure buildings and freeways are empty of human beings first.
The bigger issue is that these typical “post-crisis infrastructure spending results in massive economic gains!” stories ignore the opportunity cost of spending that money on repair rather than something else.
Committing this mistake can result in very unfortunate conclusions, such as breaking windows leads to economic growth.
"so if we dumped 30 megatonnes of concrete over the fault we'd alter the compression ratio of the subsoils and this would stop the coming mega-quake" because I read once that big buildings alter readings on somebody's seismograph, somewhere, once.
Mind you, geologists do it by reverse: I nice one I know from U Qld told me the economic upsides of the San Diego quake were net positive. I'm not sure all economists agree!