Hi Canie,

I read your paragraphs listed and knew immediately who they belonged to. When I visited Leon Knopoff at UCLA this summer, he gave me an article with much the same material he had written some years ago. I have read a plethora of documents written by Max Wyss.

Of those who were members of the Nature Debates in presenting their points of view about whether earthquake prediction is possible, being Knopoff, Jackson, Wyss, Michael, I've come to know these scientists. Also included was Ian Main as the moderator, Bob Geller who's in Japan and two others. Wyss says that he thinks its possible 30% of the time, with Geller saying its not possible at all. The rest are somewhere inbetween.

In asking the question during the debates if there was any reason to continue working on earthquake prediction with the exception of Wyss the rest said no, and none of them mentioned anywhere in the debates that the value of doing so had anything to do with life saving.

One of the above received a rather terse e-mail from me asking him if it was his neighbor a family member a co-worker or the like, if he thought giving them a warning was worthy of the effort. He said that since this was a scientific forum that mentioning saving lives or putting a human emotional element into the discussion was not something he thought they would include.

Of course I responded that if it weren't for the human element, they why bother. Though he did tell me that often he and others are called to the epicenter of an earthquake and often times the victims are still present and it always was a difficult time for them.

Though this scientist is of the younger variety and one hell of a smart guy, someone I really like, they often forget, we the public read what they write and if it seems cold and unfeeling, its not always meant to be that way.

Pat