The shallow earthquakes that have been occurring recently.

The Earth is alive—not just through its mountains, collapsing glaciers, and floods, but also beneath our feet. A magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck Panama on October 9; while initially reported as magnitude 8.0, it was subsequently adjusted to 7.6 and finally settled at 7.7. Crucially, it was accompanied by several aftershocks—including some very strong ones measuring magnitude 6 and 5—along with nearly 200 others of lower magnitude.

The epicenter was located near Pitaloza, in the Herrera province, at a depth of 12.6 kilometers. This is considered quite shallow, which is a bad sign; the shallower the earthquake, the more intense the shaking and seismic waves felt at the surface—the very place where we humans live.

Two earthquakes, even if they share the same magnitude, are not at all alike depending on the depth at which they occur. We will feel an earthquake at a depth of 12 km much more intensely than one of the same magnitude occurring at 120 km, as layers of rock act as a shield, dissipating seismic energy.

To put the energy of this Panama earthquake into perspective, it is roughly equivalent to between 350 and 360 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs—though without the radioactivity, of course; this calculation measures the energy the earthquake actually released. Tsunami alerts were also issued for the coasts of Panama and several other Pacific nations, but they were quickly lifted; fortunately, no tsunami occurred.

There were no fatalities either—which is certainly good news—though hundreds of buildings did sustain significant damage. Many others held up, however, partly because the earthquake struck a rural area and largely thanks to the enforcement of Panama’s structural regulations. These regulations have been mandatory since 1984 and undergo periodic updates, the most recent being in 2021. What do these regulations entail? Essentially, since 1984—and through subsequent updates—any building constructed in Panama must be designed to withstand seismic activity, adhering to specific technological and structural engineering criteria.

All of these factors combined helped ensure there were no fatalities and that no skyscrapers collapsed. Just imagine how horrific it would be for a residential skyscraper to collapse due to an earthquake; this is precisely why architecture and engineering—and the implementation of systems that allow buildings to withstand seismic activity—are so vital. Even if a building ends up being so damaged that it must later be demolished, the priority is that it holds up during the earthquake and does not collapse while people are still inside.

Measures and technologies exist; while it is true that some countries may fail to properly enforce urban building codes, science provides options and solutions. It is crucial to take these into account, and it appears that Panama has done so—which is why such a powerful earthquake resulted in no casualties. I am not suggesting that the absence of fatalities in Panama is 100% due to the use of advanced, well-engineered construction, but it certainly played a part—I am sure of it.