On Mar 19, 9:53 am, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:27 am, Jim K wrote:



On Mar 19, 9:24 am, harry wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:14 am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 18/03/2011 07:33, harry wrote:
...

Supposing the 1:1000 is correct. Sounds to
me like a figure pulled from the air as there is not sufficient data
to establish this....

The head of seismic hazard at the British Geological Survey disagrees
with you:

http://dalje.com/en-world/japan-quak...r-event/346034

I know which of you two I would accept knoes what he is talking about.

Colin Bignell

If the figure was 1 in say 997, then yo would know it might be derived
from some statistics. But 1 in1000? Too round a number. Hence
invented. Pulledout of the air. Opinion.

I don't know if you are serious or not!

Jim K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's the sort of thing no-one can know because earthquakes can't be
predicted. We have only been recording them for less than a thousand
years and scientifically for less than a hundred years. Not enought
time to establish statistics.
But experts like to be able to give out numbers. It adds to their
mystique and the money they can charge.
Never trust an expert. Only one step up from a consultant.

???
would most sane people be bothered by the 0.3% error margin of a 1
in997 vs a 1 in1000 *prediction* though?

Jim K