Re: Canie's travel advisory
Posted by Canie on January 01, 2001 at 11:22:09:

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)