Chris,

I love your enthusiasm on this issue, but honestly, I don't think this undertaking would meet with success because there are to many news organizations. They have a great deal of staff and events unfold so rapidly, taking time to be thoughtful for them is harder than we imagine.

There are some things that can be improved if the body of people involved is a relative constant, but in news organizations this is not necessarily the case.

In understanding that the news is not always accurate we have to wonder if the news about the panic from the tsunami warning was as wide spread as reported.

Sometimes there is no middle ground on certain issues. Today not even I can approach most scientists and talk to them about my research because they will roll their eyes, consider me something less than them and won't take a moment to look at four years of intense research. I don't even know one of them whom I could approach to discuss the obvious issue with some kind of signal coming out of Parkfield before the earthquake. Something happened and I'm sure it can be measured by some kind of invented technology, but the door is as closed today as it was four years ago.

Though you make mention of the Parkfield prediction as being a good one, actually Willow Creek was far better in that it met all qualifications. Though this negative attitude exists, it will not stop me or slow me down. It takes that kind of positive attitude and a willingness to understand that at some point the door will open and I will be there.

I do get frustrated and almost anyone would when meeting brick walls constantly when you have an answer to a question and most scientists don't want to hear it.

Petra