<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/inc/nhess/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Science</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1561-8633</issn>
		<eissn>1684-9981</eissn>
		<volume_number>1</volume_number>
		<issue_number>1/2</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2001</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/nhess-1-9-2001</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/1/9/2001/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/1/9/2001/nhess-1-9-2001.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/1/9/2001/nhess-1-9-2001.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>9</start_page>
	<end_page>14</end_page>
	<publication_date>0000-00-00</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">Hydrogeochemical precursors of strong earthquakes in Kamchatka: further analysis</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>P. F. Biagi</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="1">
			<name>R. Piccolo</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="2">
			<name>A. Ermini</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="3">
			<name>Y. Fujinawa</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="4">
			<name>S. P. Kingsley</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="5">
			<name>Y. M. Khatkevich</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="5">
			<name>E. I. Gordeev</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Dept. of Physics, University of Bari, 70126 Bari, Italyj</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">Dept. of Physics and Energy Science and Technology, University of Roma “Tor Vergata&quot;, 00133 Rome, Italy</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Tsukuba, 305-0006, Japan</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Sheffield Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Sheffield S3 7RH, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">Experimental and Methodical Seismological Dept., Geophysical Service Russian Academy of Science, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 683006, Russia</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">For many years, ion
      and gas content data have been collected from the groundwater of three
      deep wells in the southern area of the Kamchatka peninsula, Russia. In the
      last ten years, five earthquakes with M &amp;gt; 6.5 have occurred within 250
      km of the wells. In a previous study, we investigated the possibility that
      the hydrogeochemical time series contained precursors. The technique used
      was to assume that each signal with an amplitude of three times the
      standard deviation is an irregularity and we then defined anomalies as
      irregularities occurring simultaneously in the data for more than one
      parameter at each well. Using this method, we identified 11 anomalies with
      8 of them being possible successes and 3 being failures as earthquake
      precursors. Precursors were obtained for all five earthquakes that we
      considered. In this paper, we allow for the cross-correlation found
      between the gas data sets and in some cases, between the ion data sets. No
      cross-correlation has been found between gas and ion content data. Any
      correlation undermines the idea that an anomaly might be identified from
      irregularities appearing simultaneously on different parameters at each
      site. To refine the technique, we re-examine the hydrogeochemical data and
      define as anomalies those irregularities occurring simultaneously only in
      the data of two or more uncorrelated parameters. We then restricted the
      analysis to the cases of just the gas content data and the ion content
      data. In the first case, we found 6 successes and 2 failures, and in the
      second case, we found only 3 successes. In the first case, the precursors
      appear only for three of the five earthquakes we considered, and in the
      second case, only for two, but these are the earthquakes nearest to the
      wells. Interestingly, it shows that when a strict set of rules for
      defining an anomaly is used, the method produces only successes and when
      less restrictive rules are used, earthquakes further from the well are
      implicated, but at the cost of false alarms being introduced.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

