|
Re: Felt Quake EQ Predictions, Or? |
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) |
|