why I'm suggesting this, aftershocks
Posted by chris in suburbia on March 02, 2004 at 04:56:53:

Hello Roger (and Don), So, most of the excess quakes are in the first 6 hours (the 2nd, 3rd, and fifth are higher than average, but maybe within the variability). I just was curious whether quakes are occuring close in time to each other more than expected, at distances greater than would usually be explained by static stress. Since I'm not a seismologist, you may not want to spend time on these things unless you also think it is interesting/a good idea. But, even though the deviation is small, you may have shown something important (ask John). I'm a little concerned about aftershocks though. You say that the 500 km exclusion will take care of them-but not really-because you will take each M>5 aftershock as an initial quake, if they were not previously removed. Let's say that there is a swarm of 10 quakes >5 in a 24 hour period, and there is another swarm of 10 quakes in a 24 hour period, say, 5 days later, 2000 km away, Each of these first 10 quakes will have a 4,5,or 6 day lag to each of the other 10 quakes. So, you will have 100 quakes added to that time range, when you might want to only have one. You had already removed aftershocks for one of the other relations you were working on. If you have that file, you might want to run it through this 6 hour program......
Thanks...
Chris