2005 Salt Lake City Annual Meeting (October 16–19, 2005)

Paper No. 8
Presentation Time: 10:30 AM

DOES NEAR-SURFACE GEOPHYSICS SERVE THE GEOLOGY THAT SERVES SOCIETY?


BAKER, Gregory S., Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, gbaker@tennessee.edu

An engineer, and geologist, and a geophysicist are in a bar and are asked by a patron, "What is two plus two"? The engineer says, "It is 4.0000001, plus or minus 0.0000001" while the geologist says, "I'm not exactly sure, but it feels like it should be around four." The geophysicist thinks a bit and then says, "What do you want it to be?"

For years, nurses have examined sonograms performed on pregnant women, proclaimed "It's a girl," and been believed without question, in spite of the fact that even the most perceptive human may have trouble discerning the appropriate appendage (or lack thereof) on a fuzzy sonogram. However, a well-trained geophysicist may show a ground-penetrating radar section having a clear sub-horizontal reflection and proclaim, "It's bedrock!" and be believed by no one.

One of the common problems encountered by practicing geophysicists is the skepticism related to their field of study--the "geo-magic" problem. There is clearly a disconnect between what is known to be possible using near-surface geophysics techniques (as demonstrated in volumes of quality peer-reviewed literature) and what is believed to be possible in a given situation (or claimed to be possible). Near-surface geophysics has a clear and direct link to the public when applied to environmental site characterization, remediation monitoring, groundwater studies, hazards (neotectonics, mass wasting, etc.), infrastructure, and on and on. However, geophysicists are often subcontractors (or equivalent, i.e., co-PIs) on projects, and thus do not make direct communications with the public. Instead, geologists are typically employed as "geophysics interpreters" to relay the information. Crucial miscommunications between geophysicist and geologist or geologist and the public--or worse, both!--have contributed significantly to the current state of skepticism in the application of geophysics. Some simple suggestions (for geophysicists, geologists, and the public) to begin to correct this problem will be offered.