Good Day EQF,

One of the greatest pitfalls involved in forecasting earthquakes comes when people allow too much latitude in delivering them. We have to use some discretion and especially here when we deliver those forecasts in a way so as not to worry people who have no reason to worry.

In your post above you indicated the Western Pacific Ocean should be on alert and your contacts say the West Coast. In this we are discussing thousands of miles where people reside and we surely don't want everyone worrying unnecessarily about a potential large earthquake when there is nothing to support this claim.

Your suggestion that people should "watch" for a potentially large earthquake is an interesting statement because if in fact a large earthquake is about to occur, we would wish for them to do more than watch. We should expect that they should prepare for this event. However, we cannot ask millions of people to do this without giving them a reason to do so.

We have to be more specific about area's where people might be at risk in order for the information presented to be taken seriously. This is where prediction becomes murky. Over the years amateurs and scientists alike have predicted many earthquakes, yet for the most part they have not materialized, but some of these do have a track record of being successful. So in the eyes of the public they would wish to know if a person has any kind of record of success and what that record might be before they pack up and leave town.

I find it difficult to place any support for predictions given by a man behind bars for instance. As he sits listening to noises on the radio it seems rather nuts. Would the public accept a prediction from this person? I doubt it. On the other hand, one of the most experienced predictors, has had many successes and failures as well. If we look at Loma Prieta for instance, yes a person did predict this quake and this person did it 14 times before it occurred. How many times should one prepare for a big earthquake and be left hanging before they give up? Not to many I suspect. If you call wolf too many times, when the big one does come along, no one is going to listen.

Predictions as you know do not come with any guarantees which means they cannot be taken with 100% reliability. When I gave my prediction for Eureka, CA for instance, it comes with past experience and a method that I use. The earthquake will either occur or not occur, but if it does occur the magnitude will be very close to the predicted magnitude. However, the range of the expected event is only 40 miles, not over 1000 and thus isolates the area in question. It is my intention not to worry people unnecessarily, cause any kind of inconvenience, but rather a heads up for preparedness.

When the results are evaluated those who might do the evaluation would have to determine my accuracy in being as specific as I can, whereas with your watch, if an earthquake of let's say 5.0 or greater anywhere in the Pacific Ocean might be claimed a success by you, yet I am certain would never be remotely considered as a valid prediction due to the significantly large territory you suggested.

As you do not live in earthquake country it may be diffcult for you to appreciate the concerns many who live here have on a daily basis. Most people who live in on the West Coast do understand that we are always at risk for a moderate to large earthquake, but they don't need to worry unnecessarily about this possible event. So with this we have to be more specific in our delivery of such messages. That been the goal of this board for many years. Insofar as I know you are the only person who posts here who has yet to deliver a prediction based on the scientific protocol and it behovees not only me, but the rest of the board as to why you are not willing to follow this procedure.

In my most humble opinion you do not because you can't. So if you can't, then don't. Do not hand us smoke and mirrors and try to entice us to believe you have some program that is going to magically predict earthquakes. You may indeed have some support from "some scientists" in discussing possible avenues for prediction, but those have yet to yeild a proper prediction by you. Thus I would imagine if they were taking a look at this board their support would be removed. I would suggest until you can use your data or whatever it is you have to make a "proper prediction" then excuse yourself from making such wild and unsubstantiated warnings.

Please understand I am not attacking you, but wish to make it perfectly clear that earthquake prediction will never advance by your warnings. They do nothing but place some people in fear of something which has no basis in fact, or any data to support such a warning.

Petra

• The Seismic Safety Zone