Re: EQ question
Posted by Cathryn on July 21, 2007 at 16:08:35:

Okay, that's semantically neat and tidy. But the two foreshocks to Loma Prieta in the 5+ range both had little aftershocks. Correct me if I am mis-remembering. At the time, each was thought to be a separate earthquake in its own right. Only after LP, was each, about 20 miles apart, called a foreshock.

I'm just thinking about Oakland right now.

Cathryn

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: EQ question - Roger Hunter  16:25:50 - 7/21/2007  (72252)  (1)
        ● Re: EQ question - Cathryn  17:09:55 - 7/21/2007  (72253)  (2)
           ● not easy to answer - John Vidale  08:22:28 - 7/23/2007  (72278)  (1)
              ● Philosophically speaking.. - Glen  08:58:47 - 7/23/2007  (72279)  (1)
                 ● practically speaking - John Vidale  11:22:41 - 7/23/2007  (72282)  (1)
                    ● You nailed it... - Glen  18:12:22 - 7/23/2007  (72291)  (0)
           ● Re: EQ question - Todd  17:20:43 - 7/21/2007  (72254)  (2)
              ● aftershocks - heartland chris  11:58:04 - 7/22/2007  (72268)  (2)
                 ● Re: aftershocks - Skywise  22:18:49 - 7/22/2007  (72276)  (1)
                    ● Re: aftershocks - Cathryn  15:56:52 - 7/25/2007  (72296)  (0)
                 ● Re: aftershocks - Todd  17:27:58 - 7/22/2007  (72269)  (1)
                    ● Re: aftershocks - Todd  17:29:57 - 7/22/2007  (72270)  (1)
                       ● Re: aftershocks - Cathryn  11:36:57 - 7/23/2007  (72284)  (0)
              ● Re: EQ question - Cathryn  18:09:40 - 7/21/2007  (72255)  (2)
                 ● Re: EQ question - Todd  02:09:05 - 7/22/2007  (72265)  (1)
                    ● Re: EQ question - Cathryn  11:33:10 - 7/23/2007  (72283)  (0)
                 ● Now it gets more interesting - Cathryn  18:24:30 - 7/21/2007  (72256)  (1)
                    ● Re: Now it gets more interesting - Roger Hunter  18:30:59 - 7/21/2007  (72257)  (1)
                       ● Re: Now it gets more interesting - Cathryn  18:51:59 - 7/21/2007  (72259)  (0)