EQF;

> When such tremendous numbers of lives are at stake about the worse thing that a scientist can do is to try to "Play it safe" by keeping quiet.

No, the worst thing you can do is flood the media with false, unproven predictions, bringing the whole field into disrepute and destroying public confidence.

> At least if someone complains loudly in public that something needs to be done, it might get the attention of some government officials.

That's a different matter entirely.

> One of my strong recommendations has been that an international earthquake forecasting data clearinghouse be created where various types of forecast data generated by people around the world can be sent for evaluation and circulation.

That's a good idea but it shouldn't be for general consumption.

> How could "Playing it Safe" and keeping quiet possibly get that type of forecasting resource created?

Very easily. Just DO it and inform only professionals in the field.

> It would not be that expensive and could be supported entirely with private funding. But it will never get created unless people says very publicly and repeatedly that it is needed.

The general public should not be involved.

> As I said, with your next reincarnation, you shouldn't ask to return as a disaster mitigation professional if you like having food on the table.

No worry; I'm an evaluator, not a mitigator.

Roger