The tsunami warning that jolted through my cell phone at 10:51 a.m. was starkly alarming: “You are in danger.” This urgent notification was issued to approximately 5.3 million residents in California, as reported by the Associated Press, although not everyone received it, and many who did were left in utter disbelief. A tsunami here? Surely, it seemed impossible, especially since I reside east of San Francisco, situated more than a mile inland from the Bay’s shoreline, at an elevation of about two hundred feet above sea level. But then, my focus shifted: I needed to ensure my children’s safety.

I was perplexed at how a 7.0 magnitude earthquake occurring hundreds of miles to the north could trigger such a warning. However, my understanding of earthquake science and the seismic, volcanic “ring of fire” along the west coast made me aware that California is situated precariously on tectonic plate boundaries, both beneath the ground and deep beneath the ocean. The pressure in these plates can unleash catastrophic energy. One day, these underwater plates could rupture, potentially generating a devastating tsunami. Was this the day that would happen?

In my quest for clarity regarding our risk, I quickly found that obtaining accurate information was more challenging than I had anticipated. I stumbled upon a distressing map indicating that my family was indeed within a warning zone, yet I was left without clear instructions on what actions to take in response.

Understanding the Widespread Tsunami Warning Alerts

At that moment, I was unaware that the warning map I had seen was not entirely accurate for my specific location and was deemed “not the best warning decision tool,” as stated by David Snider, the tsunami warning coordinator for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In an interview, Snider elaborated that the federal agency’s public alerting mechanisms for tsunamis are often less precise than one might expect, due to the way geographical boundaries are delineated.

If I had been enjoying a day at the beach, I would have appreciated receiving a potentially life-saving text message. However, given my inland location at the time, I probably should not have received such an alarming alert. Snider explained that this notification is automatically sent through the Wireless Emergency Alert System following an issued tsunami warning.

Meanwhile, some residents in the Bay Area did not receive this alert on their phones but instead received messages from their counties stating that the warning had been canceled. Others were completely in the dark. Snider emphasized the “critical need” for the next level of service to effectively communicate with individuals in the precise areas affected, ensuring they understand when they do not need to evacuate.

Snider noted that the tsunami warning center website is currently undergoing significant enhancements to improve how warning maps are visualized, which should provide clearer risk assessments moving forward. However, he also pointed out that these boundaries represent the National Weather Service’s weather forecasting and alert zones, among various other factors. This can lead to situations where individuals residing near shorelines or coastal waterways are grouped into the same geographical area as those who live closer to elevated terrains, like the Oakland and Berkeley Hills.

The result is a distressing warning map that shows the entire San Francisco Bay Area in ominous red, raising fears among residents.

Building Trust During a Crisis: Addressing the Fear of False Alarms

As a journalist with experience in science reporting, I maintain a high tolerance for nuance and caution during emergencies. I recognize that warnings are crucial for preventing loss of life and disaster, even when the worst-case scenarios do not materialize. However, being left in a state of uncertainty, faced with a serious warning yet lacking substantial guidance, generates a unique brand of terror. This pervasive fear, felt by thousands, can cultivate widespread skepticism toward government officials and experts. Over time, this mistrust can morph into resentment.

For instance, consider the reactions to the National Weather Service’s announcement on X regarding the cancellation of the tsunami warning. One user accused the agency of deceit to safeguard their “fat salaries / pensions / benefits.” Others turned to DOGE, the X account associated with Elon Musk’s initiative aimed at reducing government bureaucracy. Tsunami warnings are infrequent compared to other natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires. Yet, as Snider observed, individuals in immediate danger along the coast appeared to have responded to the alert, followed evacuation orders, and acted accordingly. From this perspective, the system demonstrated its effectiveness.

Nonetheless, if there was ever a critical moment for disaster and emergency authorities to maintain clear communication with the public, it was this one.

Assessing Personal Risk During the Tsunami Warning

Personally, I could hardly wait to ascertain whether I was genuinely in danger. My family’s emergency bag, which I had intended to prepare in case the tsunami waves reached San Francisco by 12:10 p.m., as forecasted, was still not fully packed. During that frantic hour of gathering supplies for the emergency bag and searching for accurate information, I stumbled upon the NWS’ tsunami warning system map.

The San Francisco Bay Area was ominously shaded in red, indicating that all areas within its domain—including my home and my children’s school—were under a warning. This starkly contrasted with the phone alert I received that instructed me to move to higher ground or further inland immediately. What if I was already on higher ground yet still at risk?

Furthermore, this is where a bit of knowledge can become dangerously misleading. I recalled a different government map detailing local tsunami risks, created several years prior, which indicated that only coastal waterways posed a threat. Which map was accurate?

The emergency alert received by the author.
Credit: Rebecca Ruiz / Mashable

Later, Snider informed me that the tsunami warning system map did not accurately illustrate tsunami hazards at the community level, so it does not provide “the complete story which helps all end users have a total answer in that moment.” However, in that moment, my mind raced for answers. I envisioned a significant tsunami surge within the Bay, which spans 1,600 square miles, sending torrents of water and debris rushing inland. The haunting images of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which claimed 230,000 lives, flooded my mind, showcasing the devastating reach of such natural disasters.

Still, I struggled to find trustworthy explanations for why this warning encompassed such a wide area of the Bay Area, or what my next steps should be. Should I simply drive east, away from the Bay and the ocean? This course of action would lead me through the Berkeley and Oakland hills, which are considered very high ground—the type you would presume to be safe. However, those hills were also technically included in the warning. The text alert provided no link to a website or resource offering real-time updates or instructions.

After the warning was issued, I did not hear from any government officials. Upon later checking California Governor Gavin Newsom’s X account, I found he did not address the tsunami warning until it was officially canceled. The school district for my children sent out a message nearly an hour after the initial alert, stating, “We are being advised to keep everyone in place.”

Even though I typically rely on the National Weather Service for information during natural disasters, their tsunami alerts account on X had only posted the initial warning. The NWS Bay Area X account provided a single update between the issuance and cancellation of the warning. It read, “We are still waiting for magnitudes of water rise. We will update you as we learn more.”

Tweet may have been deleted

Friends who were seeking the same information I was reported difficulty accessing reliable websites, which frequently timed out. Then, just before noon, the warning was lifted. “Based on all available data… the tsunami threat from this earthquake has now passed,” the statement declared. It took approximately 15 minutes for county officials to inform me via text and email of this news.

Improving Future Tsunami Warning Responses

I am uncertain about the most effective method to warn millions of individuals regarding a potential tsunami. The paramount goal is to ensure that coastal residents receive alerts as swiftly as possible. However, I am concerned that the events of that day could erode trust in the warning system. Snider assured me that future updates to Tsunami.gov could more accurately depict tsunami hazard zones, which are already well-documented and available in map form at state and local levels.

He recognized that the public desires and needs information tailored to their location that is straightforward and easily accessible. Snider indicated that some of this work is already in progress, along with upgrades to the tsunami warning system website. He promised that the responses to the earthquake and potential tsunami will be thoroughly evaluated, focusing on how information was disseminated to the public.

The forecasting and warning services provided by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration are critical; however, some members of the public may draw negative conclusions about what transpired. They might believe that the government occasionally resorts to fear tactics for ulterior motives. Others may question the competence of the dedicated scientists creating models for disaster predictions and turn to unreliable sources peddling misinformation for clicks on social media.

These scenarios are detrimental to the already fragile trust in public officials. Additionally, there is a risk that individuals will dismiss future tsunami warnings if they perceive this one as unnecessary. Just because the threat of a tsunami dissipated as quickly as it emerged does not mean people will forget how they were warned—often for all the wrong reasons.