1980.6.23英国驻华大使馆的苏利文（Kim Sullivan）向英国外交部报告说：
最近有传言说中国的地质学家已经发出预报北京即将发生6到8级的大地震。鉴于传言甚嚣尘上，英国大使就让苏利文6月19日就此询问中国外交部礼宾司副司长曹元欣（文中误为 Cao Yuanxing，曹于1984至1988年任中国驻西班牙大使）。曹说他也听说了这个传言，但否定官方已经发布预告，说果真有此事的话，一定会通告外交圈的。曹还希望英国使馆可以将他的答复广而告之以抵消传言的影响。
苏利文说他们倾向于接受曹的回答，因为：1.比起官方发布预警而地震并未发生，如果真的发生了地震而没有事先预警外交圈的话，到时中国的形象受损更大；2.没有迹象表明中国人正在为可能发生地震而做准备；3. 6月17日联合国开发计划署（UNDP）的代表到访中国地震局时看到了一些图表，显示在1976年唐山地震前虽然中国没有采取行动，但那时已经或能够预测到这场地震了，而近来的图表则与1976年时的图表完全不同，另外也没有任何迹象表明近来北京地区有地质扰动。
尽管如此，英国大使馆还是检查了应急计划，尤其是如何在地震发生后收集相关地区的英国人动向。毕竟目前常住或短期来访中国的英国人已经比起1976年时大大增加了，英国大使馆舍无法再像1976年那样为来华的英国学生、商人和旅行者等等提供足够的紧急住宿。为此，苏利文还特意询问曹元欣相关的中国机构，如大学、研究机构、公司等等，能否在地震发生后为所在单位的英国人解决住房甚至撤离的问题，曹表示中国会和英国使馆密切协作，保证通讯畅通。
到了7月2日，苏利文报告说中国外交部转来一份中国地震局的正式答复，该答复用词极为小心，但苏利文认为那就更加没有必要担心地震的传言了。
地震局的答复是：“依据现有数据，地震局确认没有迹象表明北京地区近期会发生强震，地震局也没有发布过预告说7月份北京将发生里氏7级地震。
在1976年唐山大地震后，余震不断。今年就有一次里氏5.3级的余震。所以有可能还会有5级左右的余震发生，但到时北京只会感受到微小的震动而已，不会有大的震动。”
British Embassy
PEKING
23 June 1980
R C Fursland Esq
FED
FCO
EARTHQUAKE
1 . You should be aware that a strong rumour has
been circulating the foreign community recently to the effect that an
earthquake of force 6-8, with its epicentre in or near Peking, has been
forecast by Chinese seismologists.
2.
We
were unable to trace this rumour to any credible source, but due to its strength and persistence, the Ambassador felt it would be as well to
speak to the Chinese in order to see what, if anything
lay behind this. I called accordingly on 19 June on Cao Yuanxing, Deputy Division Director in Protocol
Department. Cao said that he
was aware of the existence of the rumour, which also had a more limited and less
valid currency amongst the Chinese population. He said that the rumour had
no basis in fact and that if there were any evidence of an impending
earthquake, diplomatic missions would be informed. He said that he would be
quite happy for us to pass this message on in order to counter the rumour: Protocol
Dept had indeed responded similarly to other enquiries.
3.
We
tend to give weight to Cao's statement in preference to the rumours. The
Chinese Government's prestige would suffer more damage from failing to give any
advance warning of an earthquake that occurred than from suggesting the
likelihood of one that failed to happen. There are no signs that the local population are preparing for an
earthquake. Furthermore Keith Hunter has discovered from the UHDP representative who
visited the Seismological Institute on Tuesday 17 June that he saw graphs of
readings prior to the 1976 earthquake showing this should have been or was indeed predicted,
although appropriate action was not taken, and that current graphs, produced
for the purpose of comparison, showed a completely different pattern, and no
evidence of seismic disturbance in the Peking area.
4.
We
therefore conclude that the likelihood of an earthquake occurring in the near
future is no greater than it has been at any time since 1977, and have asked
staff to pass on the Protocol Dept line accordingly. You and copy addressees
may wish to do the same if
asked.
5.
Meanwhile,
to avoid being
caught with our trousers down, we are making a review of our earthquake
contingency plans, including an attempt to make sure that we can get news about
the whereabouts and welfare of the now much larger British resident and transient population. We
would not now, as in 1976, be able to provide emergency accommodation to
British students, businessmen and tourists. I therefore took the opportunity of
my call on Cao to ask
whether the various Chinese organisations concerned (CTS, schools,
universities, corporations) would regard themselves as responsible for the
welfare and possible rehousing or evacuation of their charges in the event of
an earthquake or some other disaster. He replied yes on all points and also
said that they would wish to cooperate fully with the Embassy as a channel of
communication where appropriate. The precise mechanics of the latter is something we shall need to
think about, probably involving an approach to the Chinese organisations concerned
at least if an alert were announced.
Kim
Sullivan
cc:
Consular Dept, FCO
I C Orr Esq, APA, HONG KONG
P A B Thomson Esq, BTC, HONG
KONG
出处：英国外交部档案
FCO21/1799
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
RESTRICTED
British Embassy
PEKING
2 July 1980
R C Fursland Esq
FED
FCO
EARTHQUAKE
1. Further to my letter of 23 June, I now enclose
a copy of the MFA's formal
reply to my approach, of 19 June, based on enquiries made of the State
Seismological Bureau. Although the reply is understandably circumspect in its
wording, there is clearly no cause for concern.
2. We had not heard that an aftershock of magnitude 5.3 occurred earlier this year in Tangshan : reconstruction work, especially in the mines, must face both practical
and morale problems of some scale under these circumstances. If there were
slight tremors in Peking, I do not know of anyone who claims to have felt them.
Kim
Sullivan
cc:
Consular Dept, FCO
I C Orr Esq, APA, HONG KONG
P A B Thomson Esq, BTC, HONG
KONG
On the basis of data available to the State Seismological Bureau, they have
concluded that there are no indications of a strong earthquake in the Beijing area in the near future, and they did not issue any forecasts predicting that
there would be an earthquake in this area in the month of July with a magnitude of seven on the Richter scale.
Since the 1976 strong earthquake in Tanqshan registering 7.8 on the Richter scale, aftershocks have continued. An aftershock with a magnitude of 5.3 occurred this year. So it is possible that there may be aftershocks of
around magnitude 5, but only slight tremors will be felt in the Beijinq area as a result, and there will be no grave
repercussions.
出处：英国外交部档案 FCO
21/1800
没有评论:
发表评论