Search

The 2018 US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) incorporates new data and updated science to improve the underlying earthquake and ground motion forecasts for the conterminous United States. The NSHM considers many new data and component input models: (1) new earthquakes between 2013 and 2017 and updated earthquake magnitudes for some earlier earthquakes; (2) two updated smoothed seismicity models to forecast earthquake rates; (3) two suites of new central and eastern US (CEUS) ground motion models (GMMs) to translate ground shaking for various earthquake sizes and source-to-site distances considered in the model; (4) two CEUS GMMs for aleatory variability; (5) two CEUS site-effect models that modify ground shaking based on alternative shallow site conditions; (6) more advanced western US (WUS) lithologic and structural information to assess basin site effects for selected urban regions; and (7) a more comprehensive range of outputs (22 periods and 8 site classes) than in previous versions of the NSHMs. Each of these new datasets and models produces changes in the probabilistic ground shaking levels that are spatially and statistically analyzed. Recent earthquakes or changes to some older earthquake magnitudes and locations mostly result in probabilistic ground shaking levels that are similar to previous models, but local changes can reach up to +80% and −60% compared to the 2014 model. Newly developed CEUS models for GMMs, aleatory variability, and site effects cause overall changes up to ±64%. The addition of the WUS basin amplifications causes changes of up to +60% at longer periods for sites overlying deep soft soils. Across the conterminous United States, the hazard changes in the model are mainly caused by new GMMs in the CEUS, by sedimentary basin effects for long periods (≥1 s) in the WUS, and by seismicity changes for short (0.2 s) and long (1 s) periods for both areas.

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

We produce a one‐year 2017 seismic‐hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes that updates the 2016 one‐year forecast; this map is intended to provide information to the public and to facilitate the development of induced seismicity forecasting models, methods, and data. The 2017 hazard model applies the same methodology and input logic tree as the 2016 forecast, but with an updated earthquake catalog. We also evaluate the 2016 seismic‐hazard forecast to improve future assessments. The 2016 forecast indicated high seismic hazard (greater than 1% probability of potentially damaging ground shaking in one year) in five focus areas: Oklahoma–Kansas, the Raton basin (Colorado/New Mexico border), north Texas, north Arkansas, and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. During 2016, several damaging induced earthquakes occurred in Oklahoma within the highest hazard region of the 2016 forecast; all of the 21 moment magnitude ( M ) ≥4 and 3 M ≥5 earthquakes occurred within the highest hazard area in the 2016 forecast. Outside the Oklahoma–Kansas focus area, two earthquakes with M ≥4 occurred near Trinidad, Colorado (in the Raton basin focus area), but no earthquakes with M ≥2.7 were observed in the north Texas or north Arkansas focus areas. Several observations of damaging ground‐shaking levels were also recorded in the highest hazard region of Oklahoma. The 2017 forecasted seismic rates are lower in regions of induced activity due to lower rates of earthquakes in 2016 compared with 2015, which may be related to decreased wastewater injection caused by regulatory actions or by a decrease in unconventional oil and gas production. Nevertheless, the 2017 forecasted hazard is still significantly elevated in Oklahoma compared to the hazard calculated from seismicity before 2009.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a one‐year (2016) probabilistic seismic‐hazard assessment for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes that are constructed with probabilistic methods using alternative data and inputs. This hazard assessment builds on our 2016 final model (Petersen et al. , 2016) by adding sensitivity studies, illustrating hazard in new ways, incorporating new population data, and discussing potential improvements. The model considers short‐term seismic activity rates (primarily 2014–2015) and assumes that the activity rates will remain stationary over short time intervals. The final model considers different ways of categorizing induced and natural earthquakes by incorporating two equally weighted earthquake rate submodels that are composed of alternative earthquake inputs for catalog duration, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground‐motion models. These alternatives represent uncertainties on how we calculate earthquake occurrence and the diversity of opinion within the science community. In this article, we also test sensitivity to the minimum moment magnitude between M 4 and M 4.7 and the choice of applying a declustered catalog with b =1.0 rather than the full catalog with b =1.3. We incorporate two earthquake rate submodels: in the informed submodel we classify earthquakes as induced or natural, and in the adaptive submodel we do not differentiate. The alternative submodel hazard maps both depict high hazard and these are combined in the final model. Results depict several ground‐shaking measures as well as intensity and include maps showing a high‐hazard level (1% probability of exceedance in 1 year or greater). Ground motions reach 0.6 g horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g PGA in the Raton basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in central Arkansas, and in north‐central Texas near Dallas–Fort Worth. The chance of having levels of ground motions corresponding to modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) VI or greater earthquake shaking is 2%–12% per year in north‐central Oklahoma and southern Kansas and New Madrid similar to the chance of damage at sites in high‐hazard portions of California caused by natural earthquakes. Hazard is also significant in the Raton basin of Colorado/New Mexico; north‐central Arkansas; Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas; and in a few other areas. Hazard probabilities are much lower (by about half or more) for exceeding MMI VII or VIII. Hazard is 3‐ to 10‐fold higher near some areas of active‐induced earthquakes than in the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), which did not consider induced earthquakes. This study in conjunction with the LandScan TM Database (2013) indicates that about 8 million people live in areas of active injection wells that have a greater than 1% chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking (MMI≥VI) in 2016. The final model has high uncertainty, and engineers, regulators, and industry should use these assessments cautiously to make informed decisions on mitigating the potential effects of induced and natural earthquakes.

Likelihood testing of induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas has identified the parameters that optimize the forecasting ability of smoothed seismicity models and quantified the recent temporal stability of the spatial seismicity patterns. Use of the most recent 1 year period of earthquake data and use of 10–20 km smoothing distances produced the greatest likelihood. The likelihood that the locations of January–June 2015 earthquakes were consistent with optimized forecasts decayed with increasing elapsed time between the catalogs used for model development and testing. Likelihood tests with two additional sets of earthquakes from 2014 exhibit a strong sensitivity of the rate of decay to the smoothing distance. Marked reductions in likelihood are caused by the nonstationarity of the induced earthquake locations. Our results indicate a multiple-fold benefit from smoothed seismicity models in developing short-term earthquake rate forecasts for induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas, relative to the use of seismic source zones.

Background. The epidemiology of community-acquired respiratory viruses at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin between 1996 and 1998 was examined with molecular [multiplex (M) PCR] and standard virologic methods. Methods and results. A total of 3325 patients with lower respiratory infection (LRI) [bronchiolitis (42%), pneumonia (38%) and croup (12%)] were identified. It is estimated that 545 000 LRI hospitalizations occur each year in the United States in children younger than 18 years old (viral, 428 000; pneumonia, 221 000; bronchiolitis, 222 000; croup, 65 000), including a continued increase in bronchiolitis hospitalizations (47.8/ 1000

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) characterizes ground-motion hazard from earthquakes. Typically, the time horizon of a PSHA forecast is long, but in response to induced seismicity related to hydrocarbon development, the USGS developed one-year PSHA models. In this paper, we present a display of the variability in USGS hazard curves due to epistemic uncertainty in its informed submodel using a simple bootstrapping approach. We find that variability is highest in low-seismicity areas. On the other hand, areas of high seismic hazard, such as the New Madrid seismic zone or Oklahoma, exhibit relatively lower variability simply because of more available data and a better understanding of the seismicity. Comparing areas of high hazard, New Madrid, which has a history of large naturally occurring earthquakes, has lower forecast variability than Oklahoma, where the hazard is driven mainly by suspected induced earthquakes since 2009. Overall, the mean hazard obtained from bootstrapping is close to the published model, and variability increased in the 2017 one-year model relative to the 2016 model. Comparing the relative variations caused by individual logic-tree branches, we find that the highest hazard variation (as measured by the 95% confidence interval of bootstrapping samples) in the final model is associated with different ground-motion models and maximum magnitudes used in the logic tree, while the variability due to the smoothing distance is minimal. It should be pointed out that this study is not looking at the uncertainty in the hazard in general, but only as it is represented in the USGS one-year models.

PURPOSE: To determine whether an antibiotic flush solution containing vancomycin, heparin, and ciprofloxacin (VHC) can prevent the majority of line infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective double-blind study was performed comparing VHC to vancomycin and heparin (VH) to heparin alone in 126 pediatric oncology patients. RESULTS: The 153 assessable lines resulted in 36,944 line days studied. There were 58 blood stream infections (43 Gram-positive, 14 Gram-negative, and one fungal). Forty were defined as line infections (31 heparin, three VH, six VHC). The time to develop a line infection was significantly increased using either antibiotic flush (VH, P = .011; VHC, P = .036). The rate of total line infections (VH, P = .004; VHC, P = .005), Gram-positive line infections (VH, P = .028; VHC, P = .022), and Gram-negative line infections (VH, P = .006; VHC, P = .003) was significantly reduced by either VH or VHC. Sixty-two (41%) of the lines developed 119 occlusion episodes (heparin, 3.99 per 1,000 line days; VHC, 1.75 per 1,000 line days; P = .0005). Neither antibiotic could be detected after flushing, and no adverse events were detected, including increased incidence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization or disease. CONCLUSION: The use of either VH or VHC flush solution significantly decreased the complications associated with the use of tunneled central venous lines in immunocompromised children and would save significant health care resources.