Hi Lowell,

Well there still are some basic noises before earthquakes, in that birds go silent just before, rather than noisy. Or dogs that howl before. Then there is Charlotte King who has been tested by the scientific community and has proven she does hear low frequency noise before earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

Now this is the interesting part; the scientists call her when it seems something might be up, or rumors are running wild in speculation and then she tells them, yeah or nay. She also lets them know when a large earthquake or volcanic eruption is going to happen. But somehow that doesn't get out to the public that needs to know. This puzzles me greatly as I can't see any use it in at all unless those who need to know are told.

Charlotte is a very nice lady and I know she must have her own personal reasons for not sharing her information, so I'm not going to say she is wrong in not sharing because that's her choice. Mind you, she told me she did share with some others a long time ago, but then they started using her info as their own, so she went silent in her sharing. Its to bad it has to be like that. But such is life, the good with the bad and in the end which one will win out?

That's the best question any of us could ask. Does good overcome bad? I like to think so, and yet those who seem well intentioned often turn out to be anything but. Its the same on every topic. The fledgling congressman goes to Washington and has a lot of great ideas and is very well intentioned. He finds he cannot change what is there and has to play games by the current rules and in the end he became corrupted by absolute power.

In my own Insurance Industry after 30 years I learned something that I found interesting last year. I have several licenses to sell policies and if I misrepresent my products or lead someone on, then I can be fined, restricted or lose my license. However, the claims adjuster who dispenses the money from a claim is not required to have a license, thus he can be corrupt and the company may sponsor his ideas. He cannot be fined, centured, restricted, and his company can not be held responsible because the Department of Insurance does not act in single case events. So when you see data about the results of how insurance companies are fairing, its not from the claims standpoint, but from sales. Though I have always been very honest, and have represented my clients well, the empty promise that gets delivered in the end cannot be changed. The fix of course is to get them all licensed, but opposition to this ideal would be monumental and highly unlikely to make it through the legislature.

Thus going full circle, I have had cause to ask this question; "do citizens who live in seismic risk zones have a right to be warned of an impending possible earthquake, even though the percentage of chance is not 100%, but better than 80%? Is the government with-holding this right from us, by saying it is not possible since it is not at 100%?

We only need to cite the Loma Prieta earthquake. It was thought that it was highly likely that there was going to be a large earthquake in that area months before it occurred, yet nothing was said to the public from the scientific community. Yet, we clearly have my backyard buddy, the Rodgers Creek Fault with a probability of a 70% chance within 30 years. What is the difference between one and the other? Presentation of the facts. Tonight, tomorrow or the next day, my backyard buddy could let off the big one and the scientific community will simply say, "it was expected." Is that earthquake prediction? Yes.

Life is interesting and there are a thousand ways to look at any given matter, but in the matter of the value of a human life, today, it remains unworthy of a serious warning. The matter of a 30 year probability leaves much to be desired and hopefully Don and I can put a little emphasis on the "don't expect to wait 30 years issue."

Feedback, most welcome......Petra