Hi Dennis,

Statistical averages have a few holes in them. For instance, in the Bay Area there is supposed to be a 3.0 earthquake on average, every 11 days. but anyone who lives here knows we don't have one that often.

The problem is that when you take a given number of years and during that time a large earthquake happens with thousands of aftershocks, it throws the averaging process right out the window. This is what has happened here, due to Loma Prieta. With over 14,000 aftershocks, it makes it impossible to use the last 12 years for correct averaging. You have to use the years that preceeded Loma Prieta to get a more accurate assessment.

We live on a planet thats outer shell is moving all the time, constantly changing and with that, what once was average, may not be so today. This is what we have to look for in Parkfield today. Did the earthquake in Coalinga throw it off of its average pattern of every 22-33 years? How about the Bay Area, did Loma Prieta change the patterns here as well?

This is why I question the Earthscope project. They want to spend $17,000,000 to drill a hole under Middle Mountain. That budget is for only six years. Parkfield has been in operation for nearly 20 years and the near 6.0 has not arrived. So is spending 17 million there a good idea? Is there anywhere else on this planet that might be better, that has more frequent earthquakes where a known epicenter exists? I think so. But the only problem is that its further away and not very hospitable. Challenges.

Sure have missed your input of late...Pat