I've been watching and noticing the same thing as Petra but always felt that mentioning lack of quakes was the opposite of predicting quakes and so I've stayed quiet about it. People in Berkeley always used to talk about feeling quakes and no one has been doing that lately. That and the 'unzipping' of the Calaveras fault (which has been staying zipped as of late) makes me think we're due for a M5.0+ soon too. [near Hayward]

I always look at the underwater micros too. The weight of water, and syzygy to decide if it was something significant, diurnal tidal or 'something else'. Of course, 'something else' hits pretty often, so sometimes I wonder why this holds an area (volume?) of fascination for me. I guess I think that any serious strain will most likely be detectable here first (but that may sound 'murky'), but there is a seriously heavy constant weight over a large region and an ideal propagator. Let's say that an underwater M4.0+ would have me nervious. I know it's easy to dismiss water weight, but I don't.

P.S. I am ok with Don holding off on his methodology for now. I think that at some point, once validity has been achieved, you have to then publish, present and reproduce the results. If you can't, then no matter what the method and no matter how secret, it will be deemed a statistical fluke and unreliable. Once in this category, you become classified as 'fiction' or 'non-science' and everyone ignores you.

(FWIW, I really hope Don has stumbled onto something, some of his predictions have been downright UNCANNY, [but I remain skeptical, yet cautiously optomistic!] but I hope ond day soon he can drop the veil! )