Public Statement and Research Petition

Below is the English translation of the petition. Fill in the bracketed fields with your own details. Keep personal data such as ID numbers, phone numbers and email addresses out of the public version. Use them only on the official application form.

---

PUBLIC STATEMENT AND RESEARCH PETITION

Date: 06.10.2026
Subject: Request for a scientific review of the seismic ground behavior, evacuation capacity and disaster assembly-area status of school yards and driving-test (MTSK) open areas along the Maltepe Zümrütevler–Başıbüyük–Büyükbakkalköy axis
Addressees: Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change; AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency); Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (Earthquake and Ground Investigation Directorate); Maltepe Municipality; Istanbul Governorship (Provincial Disaster and Emergency Directorate); Istanbul Provincial Directorate of National Education

1. Purpose

This statement aims to have preparedness and evacuation capacity for a possible Marmara-origin earthquake reviewed on the Anatolian Side of Istanbul, in the public interest. It contains no accusation against any person, institution or activity. It makes no claim of sabotage or intent.

2. Observation and research question

Maltepe has hundreds of school yards and assembly areas. Roughly 3–4 open areas in the upper-elevation Başıbüyük and Zümrütevler zones (school yards and the MTSK track/ramp area) are hypothesized to differ from areas on the coastal strip in topography, ground conditions, access and openness. The research question is:

Do the ground behavior, evacuation access and assembly suitability of these areas differ measurably from those of the coastal strip and the district center? If so, how should that difference be treated in disaster planning?

3. Scientific framework and limitations

• The AFAD Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map takes a reference ground condition of $$V_{s30}=760$$ m/s. It does not directly reflect local site effects such as liquefaction, amplification and differential settlement, which require site-specific investigation. [1][2]
• Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) has published district-level ground and probable earthquake loss estimation studies for Maltepe. These must be verified separately at parcel or school-yard scale. [3][4]
• Values for ground amplification, spectral acceleration, topographic effects and surface-wave behavior are presented here as hypotheses to be verified, not as established facts.
• High elevation, line of sight or wide asphalt areas do not by themselves indicate safety, special operations or increased earthquake risk.
• There is no scientific basis for local sources such as ambient noise, traffic or event vibration triggering a large tectonic earthquake. The literature on human-induced seismicity focuses mainly on subsurface interventions such as deep fluid injection, and even this effect does not occur at every well. [5]

4. Requested information and documents

Under the right to petition (Article 74 of the Constitution) and the Right to Information Act (Law No. 4982), the following are requested:

1. Where available, geological-geotechnical survey reports for school yards and MTSK areas on the axis (borehole logs, $$V_{s30}$$, MASW/ReMi, microtremor $$H/V$$ measurements).
2. Whether these areas are defined as official disaster and emergency assembly areas, with their capacities and connecting roads. AFAD’s e-Devlet assembly area query service provides the publicly available part of these records. [6]
3. Evacuation and access analyses for the areas (road width, slope, one-way street constraints, emergency vehicle turning radius, alternative routes).
4. Secondary risk assessments based on nearby building heights and inventories of retaining walls, slope stability, power lines and trees. A suitable assembly area should be accessible and away from hazardous structures and landslide risk. [7]
5. Records, where they exist, of officially permitted events, drills or infrastructure works in these areas, subject to public-security and personal-data restrictions.
6. The scope and schedule of microzonation and ground survey studies carried out or planned in the area by the competent institutions.

5. Proposed methodology

• Define coordinates and boundary polygons for each area.
• Run a comparative analysis against a control group chosen from the coastal strip, the district center and upper-elevation areas.
• Evaluate field measurements (microtremor, MASW), AFAD hazard parameters (PGA, $$S_S$$, $$S_1$$) and evacuation simulation together.
• Report results with a multiple-comparison correction, so that chance differences are not treated as significant findings.
• Test alternative explanations separately: official holidays, empty traffic, individual civilian use and routine maintenance.

6. Reporting principle

If a concrete hazard sign is observed on site (cracking or subsidence, slope movement, unauthorized excavation or drilling, gas odor, infrastructure damage), it will be reported to the 112 Emergency Call Center and the relevant municipal units. The report will include time, location, photos and video. Unverified inferences will not be shared on social media as established fact.

7. Conclusion and request

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the relevant institutions share ground, access and assembly-suitability data for the areas named. I also ask that they carry out an independent technical assessment with field measurements where necessary, and that they announce the results transparently to the public.

Full name: [ ]
Address: [Application address]
Contact: [To be stated on the official application form]
Signature: [ ]

Annexes: (1) Area coordinate list, (2) Comparison table, (3) Source list

---

I can reformat this for a CİMER or Right to Information application form, produce a bilingual side-by-side version, or expand it into an academic report draft with a coordinate and measurement table.