Roger, as I said, I don't know what these warning signals represent, only that they appear to definitely be linked with earthquakes which will occur near populated areas.

There appear to be quite a few factors involved. But an extremely simplified picture might propose something like the following:

If a 6 magnitude earthquake is going to occur directly beneath a town which has 1000 people the signals will have a certain strength. If it is a city with 10,000 people the signals will be 3 times stronger. If it has 100,000 people they will be another 3 times stronger, and on and on.

So, for a given magnitude the signals will be some "multiple" (function) of city size.

A logical question would be:

Do the signals have the same strength if they are for an earthquake occurring near a modern city where the buildings are designed to remain standing during an earthquake, and a city made of bricks and mud where the buildings will collapse during the same strength earthquake?

Very roughly, the answer appears to be "yes."

Another question would be:

Am I detecting signals before these less destructive earthquakes which are claiming a dozen or so lives instead of 10,000 lives?

Once again, I believe that the answer is "yes." But I don't have time to process the data for those earthquakes and circulate warnings. The signals are weak. They just get added to my database.

These signals can probably be detected by people around the world. But to a large extent they are of little or no use without the necessary computer programs for evaluating the data. More powerful programs need to be developed than my present ones. And I am working on that a little at a time.

Also as I have been saying, this is research which should be done by people who are supposed to be developing earthquake forecasting programs. As far as expense is concerned, one report that I saw proposed that a devastating earthquake here in the U.S. might produce 100 billion dollars worth of damage and economic loss. A single one of those robot missiles used in the Gulf war costs more than 1 million dollars. That same million would pay for one to ten of these programs which could be saving entire cities. And unlike the missiles you really only need to develop the program once. It will work for everyone.

What do you think is more important, the cost of just one of those missiles, or saving the people of Los Angeles or San Francisco from an earthquake?

I believe that you know what the answer to that question is for the people who are making those types of funding decisions.

Also, I am not connected with any government. But from personal experiences I believe that I probably know much more about how those types of funding decisions are made than you might think.

These are personal opinions.