OK, Mike answered one question. Mike..I'm a co-author on the Fisher et al paper (Chris is my real first name). I have a paper in review on the same fault system that is making me nervous (I am sure it is good enough and important enough that it should be accepted this time, but that does not mean it will be). Petra...has the possibility of a M7.7 been published? That starts to be a large area of fault. Yes, 40 km is a big buffer...but Loma Prieta was farther than that from Oakland...so the areas of LA over the deep sedimentary basin would get a good shaking. I don't think we should worry too much about San Clemente...it is a Navy bombing range or some such thing. I don't know how many structures there are out there...I guess there must be some. I worked with Marc Kamerling who stayed in the research station out there...probably in the early 80s..I guess it is cabin at the edge of a cliff or very steep slope. He was out there during a break in the bombing...when the also have marines(?) out for training...and he was told that the marines always accidentally set a fire when they are there...which they did...and almost burned down the island or research station or something. I've been by San Clemente on a USGS ship (which was later sold to Chile)...very strange looking...very well-preserved uplifted wave-cut platforms in volcanic rocks. Oh, yeah...how bad the shking would be at LA would depend on what kind of earthquake, and if thrust, which way the fault was dipping.

Have to submit an abstract on to the Seismological Society America annual meeting...100th anniversary 1906 earthquake...holding it in San Francisco in April...are they tempting the quake gods/goddesses? I'll be doing it on the Palos Verdes structure I have talked about here before.
Chris