Re: 4.3 could be foreshock
Posted by Dennis Gentry in Santa Clarita on January 14, 2001 at 11:12:53:

Its surprising that I haven't heard anything on that possibility.

In this mornings newspaper we had the following statement:

The USGS had not identified which fault the quake was associated with, and that generally "with quakes of this size it is very hard to tell and not all that consequential," Hough said.

I'm concerned with Hough's statement and am hoping that the newspaper misunderstood what she was saying.


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: 4.3 could be foreshock - Canie  11:31:21 - 1/14/2001  (4563)  (1)
        ● Re: 4.3 could be foreshock - Dennis Gentry of Santa Clarita  13:21:47 - 1/14/2001  (4565)  (1)
           ● Re: 4.3 could be foreshock - Canie  13:30:46 - 1/14/2001  (4566)  (1)
              ● sounds reasonable-thanks (NT) - Dennis Gentry of Santa Clarita  15:25:42 - 1/14/2001  (4567)  (0)