I think in part this is because of a mode of discourse based on questions by assertion: I know a small factoid, I got it from IFLS, I repeat it here, there is an implicit question.

"so if we dumped 30 megatonnes of concrete over the fault we'd alter the compression ratio of the subsoils and this would stop the coming mega-quake" because I read once that big buildings alter readings on somebody's seismograph, somewhere, once.

Mind you, geologists do it by reverse: I nice one I know from U Qld told me the economic upsides of the San Diego quake were net positive. I'm not sure all economists agree!