Hi All. It seems the Dec. 22, 2003 San Simeon quake got some seismologist thinking about “far field aftershocks” although maybe not in the same way I look at them. They are looking much closer to home. I can’t help but wonder where the Parkfield quake fits in this.

It has been said that the 1983 Coalinga quake may have had an affect on the stress in the Parkfield area and this is why the quake didn’t occur when they thought it should, or would. Could it be that the San Simeon quake also had an affect on the stress in Parkfield and this is why the Parkfield quake occurred when it did?

What about the chatter in the Cholame area? How does this fit in? Don’t everyone try to answer at the same time. Take Care…Don in creepy town

Even though Monday’s Central Coast earthquake didn’t really do much more than frazzle some nerves here in the Bay Area, there are implications for Northern California residents.

The scientists at the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park are working to figure them out.

Question #1: Will we suffer aftershocks?

The answer is uncertain. Fault lines cover the map of the Bay Area.

According to Ross Stein, a geophysicist with the US Geological Survey, although we live hundreds of miles away from the epicenter, the chances of aftershocks in Northern California from yesterday’s quake are still unpredictable.

"Nothing is what we expect in the Bay Area for aftershocks," says Stein.

• Bay Area