Hi Dennis. I can fully understand your frustrations.

There seems to be a reluctance to go all the way with earthquake forecasting. I find it rather strange that they have made much progress in the ability to forecast hurricanes, tornados, extreme storms etc. I can theorize why they may not want to forecast earthquakes, but even that doesn’t make much sense.

In the past I have accurately forecasted 7 quakes for the Hollister/SJB area and one for Parkfield by using the data. I asked the question about how many site like those at SJB would they need to accurately cover the faults. I was told about 2000 such sites would be needed, but the cost would most likely bankrupt California so it’s not likely that this would ever be done especially when there is no guarantee that they will be able to forecast a major quake.

I think this may be where the problem lies. They can’t give a guarantee that it will work. It’s not the same as forecasting a hurricane, or a tornado. People can see those coming. They can’t see the earthquake coming. At least not in the physical sense. A major earthquake is one of the most terrifying natural phenomena that a person can experience. Once the quake starts there is nothing anyone can do except ride it out. The other thing that may be standing in the way of earthquake forecasting is the cost of being wrong. I don’t think people would take being wrong to many times.

Then again if you were right how would this affect the insurance companies? How would this affect companies that may want to build in a certain area? Would there be reluctance on their part to build in some areas knowing full well that a major quake could wipe them out in 30 seconds. Of course this situation exists now. There is the knowledge that on any given day a major quake could wipe them out. What they don’t know is when. They much rather deal with the unknown. Take Care…Don in creepy town.