Thanks for your comments, Don.

I'd like to make clear for everyone before there's any misunderstanding, is that I do not feel efforts to predict earthquakes are in vain. I think it's a noble cause and I feel that someday the puzzle will be solved.

What I do feel is in vain is when people continue pursue blatantly false ideas or ones that have been proven time and time again to not be viable.

There are no shortage of ideas for predicting quakes, but we need to seperate the wheat from the chaff. We need to stop fooling around with ideas that have already been proven to be baseless and spend our effort on ideas that show promise or haven't been fully tested yet. It's a waste of effort, time, and resources to do otherwise.

I think another aspect of the problem is people are looking for a simple answer to a very complex problem. There will not be one thing that will predict earthquakes. It won't be ear tones, or ULF, or quake clouds, or whatever. (Not picking on anything, just needed examples). I am willing to wager that when the solution is found, the answer will be as complex as the problem; perhaps even more so. The answer will probably involve a very complex interplay between many different precursory phenomena, some of which we may have yet to discover.

I only hope that this interplay is not chaotic or we're in trouble. Some say quakes may be inherently unpredictable as they do exhibit chaotic behavior. Chaos may be the ultimate stumbling block to predicting earthquakes.

Brian