>> And I was installing GPS measurements,

and trying to convince local authorities

that a earthquake hazard should be higher up on their list.

[ Silence ]

>> They were able to provide a likely scenario in that

that scenario actually did happen,

means that probably more attention should be paid

to scientists when they talk to authorities about hazards.

[ Silence ]

>> Are able to measure the position of benchmarks

that we install in blocks, with a precision of a millimeter.

We repeat those measurements over time.

So if those benchmarks move because there is deformation

in the Earth's crust in preparation

for an earthquake, then we can see that.

[ Silence ]

If you want to know the probability of an earthquake

on a given fault, it's very important

to know how fast a strain, elastic energy if you want,

is building up on that fault

to be released in future earthquake.

And that's where we are measuring essentially

with this technique.

[ Silence ]

This technique has been out there for about 15 years

at the level of precision that we have today.

The difference now is that we're able

to analyze much more data much more quickly

than we were before.

So we'll also be re-measuring the benchmark

that we have installed in the past on that fault,

and be able to look at the difference before

versus after the earthquake, and learn about the mechanics

of this particular event.

After an earthquake it takes months, years perhaps,

for the whole area of the Earth's crust around the fault

within say, 100 kilometers

around the fault, to fully recover.

And this recovery process is very important

because it's telling us a lot

about the mechanical properties of the Earth's crust.

So we have to jump at every opportunity we have to do that.

We can only do that when there is an earthquake.

It's kind of a laboratory.

It's a natural laboratory.

So when the earthquake happened, we run out there to be able

to measure those mechanical properties;

something you cannot do there easily in the lab.