Hi All,

I was doing a Google search to see if I could find any information and this tide/Sun/Moon thing and couldn't find anything under earthquake prediction other than learning that I am listed in front of EQF in earthquake prediction links. Of course, I like being first. But actually, Shan is in front of both of us, so he is really number one from this site. John V is in there, but actually inside of articles, before Shan, so I'm not sure if he is number one as far as the Google list goes, but we do know he is first in science. Alright, so I'm number 3. At least I'm there.

Anyway, I found this cool site, though it seems not visted that often unless the counter is broken, but it has the "rules of quake prediction" and also affords one the opportunity to send in your own predictions "ahead of time" for evaluation. It has a really nice cartoon as well. Don might want to try this one out and see what the good doctor thinks of his work.

So here are the rules and you can go to the link to see the cartoon.

Petra

EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION

First, the rules: an earthquake prediction is not valid (scientifically testable) unless all of the following conditions are met.

1. Time window specified. A window is either open or it is closed. Claiming a hit for an event that occurs close to the window is cheating.

2. Location specified. Knowing when an earthquake is going to strike is useless unless we also know where. Isoseismals from the event that occurs should overlap those that would have been at the 'predicted' epicenter. If you are going to predict an earthquake, the location must be specific enough that I can set up my single portable seismograph and record some strong ground motions.

3. Size. I'll be generous - within 0.5 of a magnitude unit. Claiming a 'hit' when a 4.7 occurs after someone predicts a 6.5 is like claiming that a 1 oz sirloin really weighs nearly 4 pounds.

4. Statement on significance. How does the prediction compare with the historic record? Stating that there is 1 chance in 4 that a magnitude 6.0 or greater will strike southern California during 1999 is not a significant prediction because this is nearly the historic frequency for the region.

A prediction, in order to merit attention, must be socially relevant. That is, it must either allow citizens to take actions that reduce risks posed by the earthquake, or, it must allow scientists to set up special experiments that can take advantage of the earthquake, experiments beyond the routine monitoring of the earth's vibrations and associated phenomena. If the prediction is too vague to permit either action, the predictor has a serious burden of proof in terms of explaining "Why should anyone care about that 'prediction'?" In other words, what good is a "prediction" that "a strong earthquake will occur on March 19" unless we are told where?

An editorial cartoonist's view of scientific earthquake prediction.

This space reserved for links to any page posting valid earthquake predictions. Tell me about yourself and I'll keep track of your record. If you are overly vague, I'll link to your site, but will not hold back the critical comments.

Send comments - and predictions - to Dr. Don Stierman Only predictions received before an earthquake will be considered.

• Rules of Earthquake Prediction