Re: Felt Quake EQ Predictions, Or?
Posted by Skywise on March 11, 2006 at 00:19:56:

Some may so 'no' since the quake is so small and would do little if any damage, and the ones we need to worry about are the big ones that can kill and destroy.

However, considering that there is currently no accepted method for short term quake prediction at all, I think ANY quake prediction method that can stand up to scientific scrutiny would be significant. Even if all it can do is predict the small quakes. It would be a step forward and representative of a better understanding of seismology and geophysics.

Brian


Follow Ups:
     ● I agree (NT) - Cathryn  17:02:29 - 3/12/2006  (34747)  (0)
     ● Re: Felt Quake EQ Predictions, Or? - Petra  00:27:49 - 3/11/2006  (34694)  (1)
        ● Re: Felt Quake EQ Predictions, Or? - Don in Hollister  00:29:28 - 3/11/2006  (34695)  (2)
           ● Re: Felt Quake EQ Predictions, Or? - glen  15:33:55 - 3/11/2006  (34707)  (0)
           ● OK >> Eval Requested - glen  02:53:08 - 3/11/2006  (34696)  (4)
              ● Miss - glen  11:26:55 - 3/12/2006  (34718)  (1)
                 ● was felt - Mary Antonelli  12:06:47 - 3/12/2006  (34719)  (1)
                    ● Re: was felt - glen  13:43:20 - 3/12/2006  (34732)  (0)
              ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - chris in suburbia  08:07:15 - 3/11/2006  (34702)  (0)
              ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Don in Hollister  05:08:52 - 3/11/2006  (34701)  (1)
                 ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Canie  09:32:12 - 3/11/2006  (34704)  (1)
                    ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Don in Hollister  14:02:48 - 3/11/2006  (34705)  (1)
                       ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Skywise  15:08:33 - 3/11/2006  (34706)  (1)
                          ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Don in Hollister  15:47:58 - 3/11/2006  (34708)  (1)
                             ● Re: OK >> Eval Requested - Skywise  18:13:57 - 3/11/2006  (34709)  (1)
                                ● Roger? - glen  18:26:32 - 3/11/2006  (34710)  (1)
                                   ● Re: Roger? - Roger Hunter  19:44:29 - 3/11/2006  (34711)  (1)
                                      ● Re: Roger? - glen  19:54:10 - 3/11/2006  (34712)  (1)
                                         ● Re: Roger? - Roger Hunter  21:20:08 - 3/11/2006  (34713)  (1)
                                            ● relocated quakes - chris in suburbia  06:30:39 - 3/12/2006  (34716)  (0)
              ● Addendum - glen  03:19:34 - 3/11/2006  (34700)  (1)
                 ● Re: Addendum - Roger Hunter  08:27:15 - 3/11/2006  (34703)  (0)