Hi 2 Cents,

Parkfield was chosen to be instrumented because of the seeming predictable number of years between earthquakes, being an average of 22 years apart.

But this is what we have, 24, 20, 21, 12, 32.

The next quake after the 1966 event should have occurred anytime from 1988 onward, but in the interim Coalinga which lies to the east had a quake in 1983. Some theorize that the 1983 event in Coalinga robbed Parkfield of its expected quake. Though not in all circles. In 1993 there was a major media event in Parkfield announcing the probability of a near 6, but they got fooled again.

So can one 'average earthquakes' in expectancy of the next event? I don't think so. The last two quakes in this series were 12 years and then 32 years apart. Hardly 22.

The only sure thing is that Parkfield at some point in time will have another near 6 or larger. From one local I was told it could be as large as a 7. The greatest plus is that if the instruments are all working when the next moderate to large quake arrives, it will be the mostly highly technical event in earthquake history. But it is very "iffy" about the instruments working. They frequently don't, and the money needed to repair them is not there.

Earthscope of course has added an extra element to this area, which is a plus and minus. While I do support instrumentation the cost is extremely high. I have to say I have a personal interest in this, in that the bottom of the Rodgers Creek Fault was supposed to be instrumented this year. As it is the most likely Northern, CA place to deliver a 7.0 those instruments are really "needed" here and yet, they are not.

We, the public, have no say in where our tax dollars go for funding earthquake research projects and yet, we are the future victims of earthquake hazards. Sonoma County has over a million residents and we are minus what is needed here, so Parkfield which has 37 residents can be studied. Somehow, this doesn't seem right to me, but hey, I'm just one person.

And so it goes.......Petra