Roger, although I am not a geology professional I am an experienced scientist who has an extensive legal background considering the fact that I am also not an attorney.

At what might be regarded as the predecessor to Canie’s Web site called QuakeNet.org we had a formal legal opinion from a practicing attorney who I believe specializes in part in civil rights law. And his stated opinion was that here in the U.S. earthquake predictions can be regarded as what is called “protected speech.”

I agree that it would be unwise for governments to circulate public earthquake forecasts in an irresponsible manner. But I feel that in an effort to avoid spending the necessary research dollars etc. many of them have generally swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction and are often using that precaution factor simply as an excuse to avoid doing what they should be doing. Would the fact that our governments might actually try to do something like that come as a surprise to any adult here in the U.S. who reads the newspaper or watches the evening news now and then? I doubt it.

At one point I believe that there might have been some powerful special interest groups which were opposed to the U.S. government getting involved in earthquake forecasting efforts. But I suspect that that time went past years ago. And now much of this lack of interest and effort is simply momentum. Once a large body stops moving it can take a lot of pressure to get it moving again. And I don’t know of the existence of any groups which are interested in generating that type of pressure.

If we do eventually lose one of our cities to an earthquake I am expecting to almost immediately hear in the news: “It is unfortunate that this city no longer exists. But as scientists all agree (translation: ‘all of the ones that we want to listen to’), ‘Earthquakes can’t be predicted.’ So, too bad.”