Hi John. “Your sense of the loading is better than most of the reporters - low tides encourage low-angle thrust earthquakes under the coast.” Better than most of the reporters. Not sure if that is a complement or not. LOL. I’ll have to think on that for a bit.

I tend to view a subduction faults as being along the boundary between two plates and thrust faults as being land locked subduction faults. It helps in my understanding them a little better. Were not likely to see an M>9.0 on one of the inland thrust faults as we are along a thrust/subduction fault along a plate boundary.

The Great Valley Thrust Fault may not be able to generate an M>9.0 as I don’t believe it is long enough nor do I believe all 14 segments would, or could go at the same time. It might however be able to get 3 or 4 of the segments to go which might be able to generate a quake in the upper M>7.0 range. If a quake of that magnitude occurred near the northern end of the fault it could get a little hairy. There has been a population growth in that area that you wouldn’t believe.

The paper I read is the one in the link below. Take Care…Don in creepy town

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65442,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

• John Vidale