You may read about the problems of trying to harness geothermal by digging down deep and the steam rising from the well thus drilled to then be used for power. This is believed to have caused an earthquake in Basil Switzerland. Others have proposed to stop earthquakes by finding no fault insurance lawyers like and injecting steam or liquids down to smooth the flow of the plates and reduce pressure in hopes of making the tooth pulled not schmertz so much when the earthquake finally is. The problem is obiviously about the unpredictible nature of the fault lines and that this wouldn't help as much with faults where the pressure is already built up as in the west (actually geologists believe out West they won't go swimming in the ocean if the earthquake hits they will go North as the fault line is aligned.) .
I was walking near the parking lot of Wal Mart where some have proposed building glass roads that would collect 10 times the energy for the store even if the cars are all parked. And the glass road would even have movable lines. The developer of this shining road of the stars is working on durability; semis do 20,000 times the damage to roads as SUV's. On the more prosaic lot of another store I was walking in there were lines where there had been cracks in the asphalt filled in via tar, I the comic joshed that this might be a good way to stop the lot from having a 6.7 shake! Instead of smothing the fault lines, seal them to prevent via the tar postponing the inevitible permanently. Then I wondered, is this another method perhaps of use, so if we actually immobilized fault lines and there was no pressure from the other side, I believe this is possible. To reduce the pressure we might find where the source of the pressure was building up and drill down to create magma release valves that could perhaps release pressure and magma to the surface like the ocean floor where the pressure would be harmlessly stopped. No doubt some sources of the force are deeper than we may yet drill, and some regions of buildup are over inland zones, so each danger zone would have it's own advantages and limits. Even so this may be a good extra defence against this possibility. For the main defence (other than perhaps tsunami wave generation walls by force near the shore, coating reactors in radiation absorbing foam, ect as I say elsewhere on my site (type in search box)) I think reducing torque between the water and land N and S may be better than defending after a disaster as I say on the second page of my Weather Control site (near the bottom of the page).
.
