One of the main goals of this project is to raise awareness of the Worldwide Hum and to make it the subject of serious medical and scientific inquiry. We’ve had some tangible successes in that direction, but we’ve also experienced a number of setbacks. Scanning the news headlines this morning, The National Post – one of Canada’s national newspapers – reports “A strange, low-intensity hum near Vancouver Island may help predict when the next killer earthquake will strike. “
This was obviously an exciting headline. The writer of the article is Joseph Brean. I’m not interested in the various controversies and conflicts he is involved in, but rather his science reporting. After reading a few paragraphs, I realized that his grasp of basic science is about as weak as we’ve come to expect from major media outlets. One notable and very welcome exception to this is Nicole Mortillaro of CBC, who is the editor of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, among other accomplishments.
The research was reported in the journal Nature Geoscience. As interesting and potentially important as their study might be, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Worldwide Hum. This is roughly the same group of French researchers whose work was conflated with the Worldwide Hum in 2017. At the heart of the problem, again, is lazy translation. Check your favourite dictionary, and you’ll see that in every usage, the word “hum” refers to an audible sound. This is annoying because the French language has ample choices for expressing this or vibrations in general. The seismic vibrations reported by the researchers are far below the range of human hearing (both in frequency and power). There is no sound involved. Perhaps one of the researchers has basic English skills and was looking for a cute and catchy phrase that would appeal to lay readers.
Regular readers on this topic might say, “Wait a minute; didn’t you speculate that some sort of seismic or geological activity might be causing the Hum?”. Yes, I did, because there is some evidence from amateur British scientists who reported on audible events preceding earthquakes in England during the 1800s. But of course, that has nothing to do with the present French research, which makes no claims about audible sounds.
It is ironic that we have won some major battles against the lunacy and pseudoscience that used to be associated with the Hum, and now we work to undo the damage done by educated and serious people who are misreading and misinterpreting genuine science, on a different topic.