Scientists: Big Quake Likely in Calif. (Update)

April 14th, 2008 By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer

Geophysicist Ned Field of the United States Geological Survey, refers to an illustration, during a news conference Monday, April 14, 2008, at the University of Southern California, Davidson Conference Center U.S. Geological Survey. California faces an almost certain risk of being rocked by a strong temblor by 2037, scientists said Monday in the first statewide forecast of the seismic threat. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

(AP) -- California faces an almost certain risk of being rocked by a strong earthquake by 2037, scientists said in the first statewide temblor forecast.

---

Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

---

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Latest quake highlights Los Angeles seismic danger

May 19, 2009 | 4.5 / 5 (4) | 0

Small aftershock rattles downtown Los Angeles

May 20, 2009 | 3 / 5 (1) | 0

Seismologists confirm Utah mine collapse caused temblor

Aug 10, 2007 | 4.4 / 5 (17) | 0

Scientists Expose 'Buried' Fault that Caused Deadly 2003 Quake in Iran

Mar 05, 2009 | 5 / 5 (4) | 0

Predicting the Timing of Major Earthquakes

Dec 01, 2006 | 4.1 / 5 (22) | 0

• jburchel - Apr 14, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
  • rate
  Wow, that really takes a genius to predict... And also, last year was going to be a "record hurricane year", as was the year before it, since Katrina was so fashionable, but unfortunately those genius predictions didn't come true... Scientists are such eggheads sometimes... Get out and make some money losers. hahaha
  • flag
• RAL - Apr 15, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  I predict that there is a 99.7% chance of rain in Pensylvania in the next month. heh
  
  I'm hoping that the idea here is to encourage people to prepare for the inevitable and not just chew up tax dollars producing obvious conclusions.
  • flag
• aufever - Apr 15, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  • rate
  What is remarkable is that they are looking at the wrong area for the next big one. I would look at the section from just south of Parkfield to Ft. Tejon, since it last ruptured in 1857.
  • flag
• out7x - Apr 25, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  • rate
  No mention that the SanAndreas is a weak fault, doesnt hold stress, and it is divided into 5 segments, each unique quake histories, with gaps.
  • flag