EQF, Eric Calais gave a talk where he stated that earth scientists have to be very careful what they say. I know this is a different format than, say, speaking to the press, but you just made a couple of statements that are incorrect and/or are speculation. Better to qualify such statements as speculation. The static stress change from California M7 earthquakes might advance other strike slip faults by just a couple of years, or less, or delayed by a couple of years or less, depending on where the faults are relative to the quake, and dependent on the type of quake and type of fault.

It is safe enough to say that the same fault system along strike beyond the end of the quake would be advanced (higher hazard). It is not safe to say that the rather distant Septentrional fault at Santiago would be advanced; I'd have to look at one of those plots, and if advanced it would probably be days or months, not years. I was rather remarkably unfamiliar with Hispanola faulting before the meeting, but learned a lot at the meeting. The Enriquillo-Plantain Garden left-lateral fault dies out into a N-dipping subduction zone as it enters the Dominican Republic to the east. The Dominican Republic has oppositely-dipping subduction zones to the north and south, with the Carribean Plate slab intersecting into the North American Plate slab to its north. There was a M8 quake in 1751, probably on the N-dipping (Muertos (?)) subduction zone...followed a couple months later by a M7.5 to the west. I doubt the M7 Haiti quake had much effect on advancing or delaying these subduction zone.

If the seismic waves were going to trigger anything it would have happened about the same time as the M7.

I was a little dismayed with a presentation at this meeting where the fault that failed (or may have been a fault just off the main fault) did not have reduced hazard; I think this is incorrect, and it is important, and I need to follow up on this.

Chris