2012-10-25, 03:35 PM
Alex123123 Wrote:@Stereo
It's less about incorrect and more about it being insignificant. The way that statement was used was to calm down the people as if the cluster of quakes that was occurring would reduce the possibility of a big event occurring by a significant margin or stalling it for a significant amount of time. Yes, your (hypothetical) 800 quakes of magnitude 3 released some energy, but did it reduce the possibility of a big one occurring? No. Was the energy liberated significant? Not really.
So basically they overestimated the effects of the previous cluster of quakes on preventing a major earthquake and also incorrectly concluded from it that there wasn't significant danger to the residents, even though the area has basically zero fortification? I certainly can't argue with that being misleading since that's a gross misinterpretation of data.