|
Re: Canie's travel advisory |
Hi Bob - I don't think I Ridiculed Martin - I was merely saying that foreshocks are but one aspect that is already accepted - but not all quakes have foreshocks and not all small quakes are foreshocks. A small quake in an area that is quake intensive does not automatically mean that a larger one will occur. Its just a possibility that one may occur - or not. Quake prediction has a long way to go to be able to definitely note where and when a damaging quake will occur - even if I knew a large quake was going to occur in my backyard I surely wouldn't be evacuating my house. I would be maiking sure I was prepared for one - or maybe I would make sure I wasn't in a high-rise or parked in a dangerous parking structure. I live in earthquake country - I have to live with them. I choose to live here. It sure beats shoveling snow! Martin's foreshock theory is but a piece of the puzzle - a good piece - but there are more pieces that we need to find. Canie Follow Ups: ● Re: Canie's travel advisory - martin 11:58:08 - 1/1/2001 (4261) (1) ● Re: Canie's travel advisory - Cathryn 14:25:54 - 1/1/2001 (4268) (0) |
|