I have actually studied the subject a bit, and I think it is what I wrote.
At the time of the 1971 Sylmar quake my two bosses were a petroleum reservoir engineer, and a geologist--both with Mater's degrees. I took classes.
Living and working in an area of significant quake activity, we have living, shaking labs for learning.
Best place to be in a quake is a modern building, anchored to bedrock. Or outside well clear of structures.
Thanks for your knowledgeable and experienced reply.
My limited experience includes editing the professional papers for one of Taiwan's top quake oriented geologists.
In Taipei, we didn't lose much sleep over quakes until they got up to about 5.7 to 6.0 or more. At least, not in the better constructed buildings. My apartment was near the mountains so I suspect the foundation was taken down to bedrock.
Much of Taipei is on a flood plain where liquifaction would likely be a big dangerous issue in a big quake.
I don't know how Taipei 101 is constructed. That was after my time there. It may be on the edge of the sediment covered flood plain, as well--a more Southern edge.
What factors determine, in your opinion, that smaller adjacent quakes would relieve stress on say the San Andreas vs result in more pressure loaded onto it? I'm having trouble picturing that. Sorry.
Is it that they allow the San Andreas to move a little near the adjacent quakes?
IIRC, the San Andreas is considered rather locked. And, I think, becoming MORE locked--which--to me, signifies greater pressures as it becomes more locked???