"NO RELIABLE EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION"
Posted by cal on July 21, 2006 at 14:02:39:

"NO RELIABLE QUAKE PREDICTION"
Got a short article today from my agent. "Predicting the Big One" published in the May issue of "Wired" is enough to rock my world and maybe yours, too. The reporter who doesn't deserve to be mentioned writes: ". . .There's still no reliable method of earthquake prediction. Investigations into supposed omens -- unusal lights, radio noise, bizarre animal behavior -- have all proven to be dead ends. As a result, earthquake scientists have largely abandoned the quest for a short-term warning system."

After the proven anecdotes of animal signals for the "World Series Quake," animals who survived the great-quake tsuanmi on Dec. 26, 2004, and endless other significant quake hits by Berkland, Coles, and many of you -- as well as myself thanks to my sixth sense -- I find this article disturbing. While I know the USGS stands by this belief, it is sad that a reporter didn't show both sides of the coin regarding earthquake prediction. Comments?

Callie




Follow Ups:
     ● Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Skywise  15:10:15 - 7/21/2006  (39446)  (1)
        ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Cal  15:32:33 - 7/21/2006  (39447)  (1)
           ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Skywise  16:16:16 - 7/21/2006  (39450)  (1)
              ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Cal  16:36:14 - 7/21/2006  (39451)  (1)
                 ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Skywise  16:53:13 - 7/21/2006  (39452)  (1)
                    ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Cal  17:04:31 - 7/21/2006  (39453)  (1)
                       ● Re: Anecdotes Do Not Make A Science - Skywise  17:51:45 - 7/21/2006  (39455)  (3)
                          ● Re: Skywise and Chickens - cal  18:24:17 - 7/21/2006  (39459)  (0)
                          ● Re: To Anti-Chicken Man - cal  18:23:43 - 7/21/2006  (39458)  (0)
                          ● Re: To Anti-Chicken Man - cal  18:23:01 - 7/21/2006  (39456)  (1)
                             ● ad hominem - Skywise  18:46:05 - 7/21/2006  (39461)  (2)
                                ● What science are you involved in? - Glen  21:15:34 - 7/21/2006  (39465)  (1)
                                   ● Re: What science are you involved in? - Skywise  00:42:33 - 7/22/2006  (39473)  (1)
                                      ● Sound well rounded - Glen  12:05:08 - 7/22/2006  (39484)  (0)
                                ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - cal   20:25:13 - 7/21/2006  (39463)  (1)
                                   ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  00:30:37 - 7/22/2006  (39472)  (1)
                                      ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Callie  10:26:32 - 7/22/2006  (39482)  (2)
                                         ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  15:56:01 - 7/22/2006  (39486)  (1)
                                            ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - cal  17:22:43 - 7/22/2006  (39487)  (1)
                                               ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Skywise  20:25:37 - 7/22/2006  (39490)  (0)
                                         ● Re: P.S. Triple Posts. and Tunnel Vision - Roger Hunter  12:02:52 - 7/22/2006  (39483)  (0)