Just finished her new book on prediction last night. I found it entertaining and well balanced. She describes many methods that purport to predict quakes (alas, most of them only worked AFTER the quake in question), and goes into some detail about how the studies were done, who did them, and describes how flaws in these methods were discovered and disseminated in the scientific establishment. She is very clear about how difficult it is to spend years working on these projects, and the problems of disputing the research of others.

She is more than polite to "fringe" elements. She feels that there is a continuum of efforts between amateurs and pros---some stuff that seems strange now may become the key to prediction. A few familiar names are mentioned, but she is respectful to them all. Quotes from others (Charles Richter, etc.) give some punch to things.

In the end, the tone is fairly pessimistic (even though I think she tried NOT to make it so!). Predicting quakes on a useful short-term basis may never be possible. The best protection for people is to build strong structures in quake prone areas---but as she points out, this isn't as "sexy" as quake prediction.

And, alas, even if ONE quake has a definite "something" beforehand, other quakes do not. They seem to have their own personalities---and a time scale that we cannot use very well for prediction (ie, all those 10,000 year recurrences!)

Anybody who is interested in quake prediction (that assumes most folks here!) should read the book. One of the main strengths of this work is her emphasis that one has to keep an open mind AND scientific rigor. The former is available to all, and alas, the latter only to those with sufficient education and opportunity.