Hi Petra;

Seems like I stirred this pot a little too well!

> The question regarding one's track record is an interesting one. This of course came about with the VAN group when at the time they were sending telegrams in making their predictions. Today we have e-mail instead.

Today we have EQF sending email all over the world.

> Therefore, in your learned position, what form of recording one's record do you feel would be acceptable to the Earthquake Prediction Council? Should one perhaps document one's predictions with 10 others who's knowledge in record keeping and silence could be trusted. Should it all come in the form of being written on paper? Notarized? What would work? How many correct predictions over what period of time is enough?

That's what my USGS program should have acomplished. But now it's a catch-22 situation. You can't get credibility without a track record and you can't make predictions to GET a track record without Council approval.

> As for Iben Browning, let us set the record straight. Iben forecasted either the New Madrid OR Japan. A moderate earthquake did occur in Japan during the time specified, but not in the correct magnitude range.

Only New Madrid mattered. japan has them all the time.

> It was the press that made this a runaway issue and then to foo foo the press a lot of scientific time was spent proving his theory was incorrect. But mind you, he died without having time to defend himself or his theory.

The same thing would happen again with a prediction publicised the way his was. I have his book, BTW.

> So let us go to a modern day case. Loma Prieta. The USGS was aware that this area was very likely to have an large earthquake. Some staff were told to place extra monitors in the area, but failed to do so. But Jim Berkland through the San Jose Mercury News issued his formal prediction 3 days before it occurred. The prediction was a perfect fit. The USGS, nor anyone else that I am currently aware of made any extra efforts to foo foo his method. Not then and not now. Why? What makes Iben Browning so different from Jim Berkland? The press, not the scientific community.

Ah, but I AM studying Jim Berkland. And getting a lot of guff for it, I might add. He and his followers don't like negative reports even if they're true.

> While I do wish to be totally respectful to the good doctors who are on the Prediction Council, we have to be aware that great political ramifications can insue if they decide one day to let someone go ahead. But the larger question is would they ever say yes? Despite irrefutable evidence in favor of? Most likely, not.

I tend to agree. I was present at the Brady-Spence meeting and it was cruel to say the least.

> For all time the memory of what occurred at Mammonth Lakes in 1980 will revisit this groups memory and they will never say yes. I find it hard to accept, but I feel there can never come a time would they would consent.

> Therefore, the only time the public will become aware of a great and dangerous earthquake will be through the efforts of someone who cannot be dismissed by an employer, a retired scientist.

Uh huh..

> One who has a notable career

Ooops! Lets me out.

> and a person who through trial and effort is very sure this danger is there and one who will step out on his or her own and tell the press.

Lowell, you're up.

> The answer to the problem is not in just the "how to" in formulating a valid prediction, but finding scientific support in deliverance.

> So we go back to square one. Do earthquake forecasting with the weather reports, get folks used to the idea of hearing about them daily in the 3 and 4's and so forth and then when a serious earthquake is about to occur they are already ready to hear the news.

Won't happen.

> But along with those daily forecasts how about delivering some earthquake preparedness tips? It never hurts to be ready.

That would work.

Roger