Good Day Don,

Well, let me say this. If a weather forecaster can see a hurricane coming, evacuates a city of a million people and misses by 300 miles, well, what's wrong with a seismologist who gives a prediction of a 4.5 in Oakland vicinity and it happens in Richmond and its a 4.7? I can't imagine a lot of fall out from that.

The point is, you have to start somewhere and it isn't going to be "the big one" because people can't handle that. But an emergency response team usually works in a building that quake proof because they know to do otherwise, would be foolish. But for the average Joe if he takes the quake forecast seriously, when he gets to work, he might want to check things out, make sure he can fit under his desk and talk to the boss about what they can do to make things a little safer where he works. Common sense should dictate the order on that issue.

But I think there would be an education process that would work up to the delivery of testing earthquake forecasts. Perhaps they could select some companies down in the silicon valley and ask them if they can be part of this testing to see how it goes, before it goes public. How about that?

I have to disagree with you that forecasting isn't necessary. If I were planning a trip somewhere in let's say LA and there was a forecast for a 7.0, I think I'd change my plans. Why put myself in a possible harms way position, especially if I didn't know the area very well. I could give you plenty of examples, but for the sake of space, I won't.

You made some important points and I appreciate everything you had to say.

Pat in Petaluma