Re: Earthquakes And CMEs
Posted by EQF on May 08, 2003 at 08:29:07:

I was not disagreeing with you. My point is the following:

When we have to deal with phenomena such as earthquakes and tornados which can claim lives and cause incredible amounts of property damage then our governments etc. should spend some time and energy on trying to find ways to save the lives etc.

Large amounts of money are being spent on various earthquake forecasting projects around the world. But simply throwing money at a problem is inefficient. You have to also have a good sense of direction. Research related to solar storm and gravity force related earthquake triggering is inexpensive and easy to do, especially the gravity research. You only need a computer, data which are readily available, and certain types of computer programs which are also generally available. So, spend some money on the expensive projects if desired. But do the inexpensive and easy research as well. More will get accomplished. And in my opinion this is not being done.


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - Roger Hunter  16:50:57 - 5/8/2003  (18620)  (1)
        ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - EQF  20:01:04 - 5/9/2003  (18637)  (0)
     ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - Don in Hollister  13:00:40 - 5/8/2003  (18618)  (2)
        ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - EQF  20:00:52 - 5/9/2003  (18636)  (0)
        ● Absolutely right. - Roger Hunter  16:47:20 - 5/8/2003  (18619)  (0)
     ● fluctuation convictions - John Vidale  09:38:53 - 5/8/2003  (18617)  (1)
        ● Re: fluctuation convictions - EQF  20:00:36 - 5/9/2003  (18635)  (1)
           ● water well level - John Vidale  07:02:14 - 5/10/2003  (18641)  (1)
              ● Re: water well level - EQF  11:35:15 - 5/10/2003  (18646)  (1)
                 ● points are being missed - John Vidale  12:58:33 - 5/10/2003  (18648)  (2)
                    ● Shan's method - Roger Hunter  12:52:24 - 5/11/2003  (18662)  (2)
                       ● a poor man's strainmeter? - John Vidale  08:58:04 - 5/12/2003  (18671)  (2)
                          ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - Roger Hunter  13:39:24 - 5/14/2003  (18701)  (0)
                          ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - EQF  16:46:14 - 5/12/2003  (18680)  (0)
                       ● Re: Shan's method - EQF  14:47:15 - 5/11/2003  (18665)  (0)
                    ● Re: points are being missed - EQF  14:11:24 - 5/10/2003  (18650)  (0)