John, you may find this thread, which follows a long thread below, interesting. We need some help, I think.

I would like to know if having a M6 in Pacific region (including some of the other plates like Phillipines and Indonesia area)_ makes it more likely there will be another one: that there is either some poorly understood trigger, or some 3rd thing is triggering both. I imagine there is a way to do this statistically. I don't know what Roger's exponential curve means...too terse as usual.
Juts a note...the Peru M8 was preceded by a 6+ and followed by a 6+ elsewhere (in 3rd location). So, the first quake would have 2 within 24 hours(?) and the M8 would have one of those 2 also. This would throw off the statistics. Also, how would the M6+ Peru aftershocks be dealt with? used or not used? For example, one of the 6+ quakes elsewhere would be used as within 24 hours and more than 1000 km of the M8, also of a M6+ aftershock, and might be followed by a M6 Peru aftershock and counted again. So, to make the analysis easier, all of the aftershocks might have to be excluded altogether. (any quake within 1000 km and 30 days of a larger quake excluded?).

I would not be surprised if there was nothing significant once a full blown analysis but it still looks to me like something is going on.

I could not find the good deck of cards so got the one my daughter bought us with George Bush's face put on a bunch of bathying beauties from the 1930s or 1940s...disturbing. I lost...my losing streak is intact.
Chris