Many Turkish residents did not receive Google's earthquake warning before the deadly quake in February, an examination by BBC Newsnight has revealed.
Google claims its alert system has the capability to give people up to a full minute's warning on their mobile devices prior to an earthquake occurring.
The message was distributed to millions prior to the initial, most significant earthquake.
The BBC nevertheless traveled to three cities in the earthquake area and questioned hundreds of locals, yet not one of them reported to have been notified in advance.
This system runs on any phone that isn't an iPhone, including Android phones, which constitute around 80% of phones in Turkey and are usually more economical.
Prof Harold Tobin, director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, states that when Google pledges or implies a commitment to providing a service such as earthquake early warning, they raise the bar.
It is their duty to carry out any action which could possibly affect life and safety.
Micah Berman, Google's product lead on the system, asserted that it had functioned as intended. He declared to the BBC, "We are sure that this system triggered and sent notifications."
Despite this, no proof was offered by the business to show that these notifications were greatly received.
Over 50,000 fatalities were reported in connection with February's earthquake.
A 7.8-magnitude earthquake shook the region in the early morning, followed by a second major tremor at lunchtime.
A limited quantity of people were given notifications regarding the second earthquake by the BBC.
In June 2021, Google announced their Android Earthquake Alert System in Turkey.
The system is functioning in numerous countries globally. The corporation outlines the capacity to send earthquake notifications as an "essential" feature of its Android offering.
This utilizes Android's extensive network of phones, which feature miniature accelerometers that can identify shakes.
When a multitude of phones simultaneously vibrate, Google is able to detect the epicenter and calculate the intensity of an earthquake. Google has created an educational video to provide further insight into the process.
If an earthquake of magnitude 4.5 or higher is recorded, the Android system will be able to issue a warning.
Mr Berman states that this alert is different from the typical ones on mobile devices, as it takes up the entire screen of the phone.
The loud warning signal is accompanied by the instruction to "drop, cover, hold."
It should also bypass a user's do not disturb setting automatically, so there's no need to activate it.
Mr Berman states that, regardless of the condition of the phone, a warning should be received.
Google asserts that their system was successful in sending notifications to millions of people on February 6th.
The amount of notice users received from Google would be contingent on their proximity to the earthquake, Mr Berman states. An alert through the web can be transported at a speedier rate than seismic waves going through the planet.
He remarks that the warning might last a split second, or up to a minute, varying in duration.
Despite comprehensive coverage of the earthquake area in the hours, days and weeks subsequential to the tremor, not one person said they received a notification from the BBC.
We started looking specifically for those who had received the warning.
Our crew went to Adana, Iskenderun and Osmaniye, cities which were situated between a distance of 70km (43 miles) and 150km (93 miles) from the main source of the disturbance.
We surveyed hundreds of individuals who own Android phones.
Although we were able to locate a few individuals who were issued alerts for the second tremor, there was no one who had been warned of the first one, which had the greatest magnitude.
In Iskenderun, Alican shared that his grandmother had been lost when a hospital collapsed. He revealed that, although he had been alerted beforehand, on this occasion, he hadn't.
We sent our coverage of the earthquake area to Google's Mr Berman.
He suggested that, due to the great effect of the initial event, the occurrence of this could have gone unnoticed by users, since they were focused on other matters. Ultimately, he thought this was probably the most plausible scenario.
The individuals we questioned were unwavering in their assertion that no one appeared.
Funda, who has been occupying a tent shelter since the earthquake, claims that she has endured the loss of 25 relatives.
"We emphatically placed people in the soil. My brother-in-law and nephew were interred embracing each other," she states.
She stated that she was positive she did not receive an alert, even though she has an Android phone.
People often share on social media after an earthquake that they had been alerted, which has been a usual occurrence in places affected by quakes since Google's system was rolled out.
Mr. Berman states that one of the limited number of feedback sources that are available to them is analyzing social media.
Although Mr Berman acknowledges it, social media was uncharacteristically quiet following the first earthquake in Turkey.
He says he doesn't have a definitive answer as to why there hasn't been more response on social media regarding the event.
The BBC requested information to demonstrate that notification had been given. In response, Google provided a single pdf containing 13 social media posts in which individuals mentioned having received a warning on that date.
We got in touch with the authors of the posts.
Ridvan Gunturk had reported that he had received a notice in Adana about the second earthquake, but he clarified to the BBC that he had not been alerted about the first one.
The BBC converse with the creator of one of the social media posts in reference to a warning concerning the original quake, which contained a comprehensive narration. Nonetheless, the author of the post declined to provide their name.
The author stated that they thought they had been warned, yet they couldn't be absolutely sure of their recollection of events then.
Google reported that user surveys demonstrated the system was effective, yet would not make the results public.
Prof Tobin stated to the BBC that although Google's system is still in its infancy, it could turn out to be beneficial, however, it is imperative that the firm be open about it.
He emphasizes that when providing a significant life or public safety message, it is essential to be open about the details of how it works and its effectiveness.
We're not referring to a random, isolated incident. These warnings are intended to be used widely and consistently. That's the entire purpose.
Prof Sukru Ersoy, a Turkish earthquake expert, informed the BBC that his wife was in the region affected by the earthquake, although she did not get a notification on her Android phone.
He states that none of the people he has talked to have received a warning.
He states that had Google's system been successful, it could have been highly advantageous.
This major earthquake, believed to be one of the most significant quakes of the last century, raises the inquiry: if this is an advantageous system, why was it not operational at this crucial time?
Google stated in response to the BBC's interview with Mr Berman that "a variety of factors can impact whether users receive, view, or act on a supplementary warning during an earthquake, depending on the magnitude and intensity of the quake as well as internet availability."
Comments