Hi Lowell,

Thanks so much for the details on these quakes. Its easy to go from week to week and throughout any given year and forget how bad things can be, especially when its someone else's earthquake.

However, when we in the US consider that we don't have large earthquakes that often, where damages in populated area's are very severe or much loss of life, it is difficult for the average person to feel they have much to be concerned about.

Most of the posters here or readers know that at some point in time, this long period of quiet is going to be followed by something. But what is a realistic view about what might happen. Shall we continue to have a large quake every six or so years where we have a major problem, or is it going to be far less, or perhaps far more? This is a difficult question to answer in so many respects. Maybe there is no answer.

Personally, this quiescense says that as each day comes and goes we are one day closer to that big quake(s). But you have to wonder, what location is more apt to have this large quake than another. We have statistical probabilities for the entire US, but it says little as to where it really is going to happen.

Long term probabilities in my point of view are a total mistake in the delivery to the public. So many think it really is going to be 30 or more years until the next earthquake comes and most of them probably think its at some distance from where they live as well.

How to do you tell them, its most likely not going to be that long and if it does occur, it may be in multiple locations, or on a fault system that's going to rip and tear hundreds of miles? I would like to see this kind of information changed in the language delivered to the public. It does little to motivate people to prepare and in that the greatest danger exists.

Petra