|
Re: 4.3 could be foreshock |
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) |
|