Hi Todd,

I've done a copy and paste so I don't lose my place in responding:

These findings are for LA and SF areas right? If so is it posssible to pull #s for sparsley populated areas of CA w/ high seismic rates? Parkfield/Central coast, the Mojave Desert (or any area along the San Jacinto fault) or the NOrth coast (Humboldt, Eureka areas?) or even Hollister?

Yes, this study is for LA and SF. We can pull other area's, but I would not be inclinded to chose a place such as Parkfield with only a population of 37. The areas need to be higher population centers, yet places which do not have a heavy commute. Perhaps Palm Springs and Sacramento would be a better comparison. Eureka and that general area doesn't have enough earthquakes or population and Hollister sits in a constantly creeping location which is not similar to SF, LA, Palm Springs or Sacramento for instance.

Also I am not a scientist. But, I do know that for our calendar, days, weeks, and years revolve around the earths spin and its rotation around the sun. Seeing that the earth does these things on clockwork....would it be safe to assume that routine wobbles or changes within the earth's cycles may consistently fall on Sat/Sun and translate to less quakes?

The Julian calendar affords constant change, such as you'll notice different numbered days will not appear year after year on the same day of the week. Though there has been some discussion about solar flares causing earthquakes so far as I know there is insufficient evidence to date to declare effects of the Sun having a direct connection to earthquakes in a specific location. Plate tectonics would be a far more viable vehicle for areas along the ring of fire, than any lunar body. Though the Earth may wobble it doesn't do it in such a way to add influence or negate influence directly associated with earthquakes insofar as I know.

Thanks for your input. It is very much appreciated. I think perhaps a better question overall in regard to this study is: What is normal?

Petra