Meet Lucy Jones, "the Earthquake Lady"
As part of her plan to prepare Americans for the next "big one," the seismologist tackles the dangerous phenomenon of denial
- By Amy Wallace
- Photographs by David Zentz
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2012, Subscribe
One of Lucy Jones’ first memories is of an earthquake. It struck north of Los Angeles, not far from her family home in Ventura, and as the ground lurched, her mother guided 2-year-old Lucy and her older brother and sister into a hallway and shielded them with her body. Add that her great-great-grandparents are buried literally in the San Andreas fault and it’s hard not to think that her fate was preordained.
Today Jones is among the world’s most influential seismologists—and perhaps the most recognizable. Her file cabinets bulge with fan letters, among them at least one marriage proposal. “The Earthquake Lady,” she’s called. A science adviser for the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Jones, 57, is an expert on foreshocks, having authored or co-authored 90 research papers, including the first to use statistical analysis to predict the likelihood that any given temblor will be followed by a bigger one.That research has been the basis for 11 earthquake advisories issued by the state of California since 1985.
Charged with improving the nation’s response to natural disaster, Jones’ specialty, increasingly, is another complex natural phenomenon: denial, that dangerous unwillingness to acknowledge the inevitable. What good is scientific knowledge, in other words, if people don’t respond to it?
You might have caught her on TV trying to help people understand earthquake risks after the Eastern Seaboard felt the 5.8 quake epicentered in Virginia this past August or after Tohoku, Japan, kept rocking and rolling after the 9.0 quake there last March. “She has the bearing of your terrific next-door neighbor who takes superb care of her window boxes. And yet she is as learned as anyone in the field,” says “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams, who has interviewed Jones numerous times on television.
“I’m everybody’s mother,” she likes to joke, aware that her gender—while not an asset when she was at MIT in the ’70s—is now a plus. “Women are more reassuring after an event,” she says, recalling how moved people were years back when she conducted post-quake TV interviews holding Niels, her 1-year-old son, in her arms (he’s 21 now). That mother-and-child tableau cemented her position as the informed voice of calm in truly unsettling times.
“Lucy brings magnetism to what is normally a dull subject: preparedness,” says Paul Schulz, CEO of the American Red Cross of Greater Los Angeles, whom Jones recently accompanied to Chile to study the impact of its 8.8 magnitude quake in 2010. On that trip, thousands of miles from home, a woman approached Jones and asked for her autograph.
Earthquakes may be classified as foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks. All occur when energy in the earth’s crust is released suddenly, forcing tectonic plates to shift. What differentiates them is their relation to each other in space and time. A foreshock is only a foreshock if it happens to occur before a bigger quake on the same fault system. An aftershock occurs after a bigger quake.
A lot of people had pondered foreshocks before Jones did, but she asked a critical question: After an earthquake, is there a statistical method to predict the chances that it was a precursor to a larger jolt? The answer was yes, as Jones demonstrated in a 1985 paper and subsequent studies analyzing every quake in the region’s recorded history. She found that the probability that an earthquake will trigger a bigger one does not depend on the magnitude of the first earthquake but instead is related to its location and interaction with fault systems.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Earthquakes Natural Disasters
Additional Sources
The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario—A Story That Southern Californians Are Writing (PDF), jointly published as California Geological Survey Special Report 207 by U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey









Comments (8)
To Whom it May Concern,
I've experienced several earthquakes both in the US and here in Japan. I read the article about "The Earthquake Lady" with great interest but for a number of years now I wonder why the US still uses only the Magnitude scale when discussing earthquakes. Many Americans will probably disagree with me but the Magnitude scale is really only for scientists and doesn't tell governments and ordinary people what they really want to know.
What do governments and ordinary people want to know? How much shaking there was in a given location, how much damage there might have been, how many people, family or friends might have been injured or killed. The Magnitude scale doesn't really tell us anything about these things. As an example, if there is a Magnitude 6 earthquake, do we know how much damage is done in LA? No. To even start to understand we also need to know if the earthquake was right under LA or 500 miles away, if it was 1 mile down or 100 miles down, whether buildings are on sandy ground or land with a good solid rock underlayer, etc.
The Japanese, on the other hand, use a scale called "shindo" (amount of shaking). Evaluation criteria include things such as do sleeping people wake up, did hanging lights swing, is it difficult to walk or stand, is it impossible to walk or stand, how many buildings be damaged or destroyed, etc. Granted, as the building code changes, some of these criteria will change but within a few minutes of an earthquake in Japan one can see the shindo numbers for individual towns and cities. This is information that governments and ordinary people are interested in. I would like to see the US come up with such a scale, too, so that everyone has a better idea of what might have happened in areas hit by an earthquake.
Bob Potter
Posted by bob potter on February 29,2012 | 05:23 AM
“It’s the aftermath that we need to prepare for,” said Lucy Jones in the February 2012 issue. We couldn’t agree more.
EMDR Humanitarian Assistance Programs (HAP) sends teams of volunteers to underserved regions in the world that are likely to suffer earthquakes, floods, cyclones, hurricanes and other natural disasters to provide training in surviving the psychological after effects of disasters: most notably PTSD (post trauma stress disorder). Lucy Jones believes that “We must prepare for disaster and the danger of denial of the emotional aftershocks: PTSD.” That is precisely what HAP is about. Denial of the probability of PTSD often means denial or recognition of the depression, violence, drug and alcohol addiction that can result from lack of treatment – often showing up months after the worst of the physical disaster is over.
Trauma can, however, be treated successfully using an evidence-based therapy, EMDR (eye movement desensitization and reprocessing), when administered by qualified clinicians. EMDR uses a powerful method of psychotherapy that has helped an estimated two million people of all ages. In this country, there are 13 regional Trauma Recovery Network chapters – teams of clinicians that seek to improve the readiness of their own communities in disaster preparedness and also other provide assistance elsewhere at in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Irene, and the tornadoes that ripped through Missouri and Alabama.
We must all prepare for various inevitabilities. Denial costs lives and minds.
Posted by EMDR Humanitarian Assistance Programs on February 24,2012 | 02:42 PM
Profiler is in denial.
I wonder how seismologist Lucy Jones feels about her profile, "Ready or Not", in the February 2012 issue. Quoting, "The southern San Andreas ruptures . . . on average every 150 years. The last time was more than 300 years ago, which means that Los Angeles . . . MAY BE overdue for a major quake." Is she happy that you made her point that people are in denial, or is she upset because she could not teach your writer that Los Angeles IS overdue?
Posted by Philip Kukulski on February 14,2012 | 05:24 PM
Great career!
Posted by John on January 21,2012 | 05:35 PM
Growing up near Cleveland, Ohio, I was aware of minor earthquakes, more like "shivers", emanating from an area off of Cleveland, in Lake Erie. Often the only evidence was that pictures would suddenly tilt on the wall. The most I ever felt was like a heavy truck passing by the house, accompanied by a grating noise. This was read as a 4.(?) strength quake, I don't remember exactly. It was in the 1980's. It is hard to imagine quakes that do damage, even though we see the evidence in newspapers and TV nearly every week. We think, "Oh, there's another one", and don't think much about quakes after the news agencies stop reporting about it. My sister and I try to keep up with the quakes on the internet, checking every few days on the USGS web site. We have family and friends in quake prone areas all over the US.
Posted by ronnyj on January 21,2012 | 03:08 PM
Here in Southern California there is no doubt that Lucy Jones is our earthquake lady. We know that when we have an earthquake we will be seeing her on TV and she will explain in language that everyone can understand what happened and what to expect. She is fabulous. I think that we in SoCal are probably the only people in the world that know our Cal Tech seismologist by name.
Thanks Lucy, you always know how to calm us down.
Posted by Terry Almy on January 20,2012 | 07:35 PM
I would have to agree that Dr. Lucy Jones has become a household name!!! She is a fascinating scientist as well as person in general. Always happy to engage in conversation regarding Earthquakes and the like. A true asset to the planet!!!
Posted by Captain Stacy Gerlich on January 20,2012 | 01:06 PM
Having been through a number of very minor earthquakes but only felt one and that recently would it be possible for documentaries to get the message across. Fukushima and Christchurch are both fresh in peoples memories.
Posted by ErnestPayne on January 19,2012 | 07:55 PM