(east of San Francisco; 37.9°N 121.9°W), and (c) anywhere in Washington or Oregon. Then he then selects location and magnitude by considering a number of other factors, including: (1) unusual animal behavior (2) misbehaving geysers and hot springs, (3) extreme seasonal rainfall, (4) reports of symptoms from human "seismic sensitives", (5) magnetic fluctuations, (6) seismic quiet periods, (7) personal intuition (his so-called "MOSS predictions", or "monthly outright seismic speculations"). How Berkland evaluated his success rate prior to 1999 is unknown. Since then he has used his "dartboard" method, where he takes credit not only for "bulls-eyes" (where an earthquake occurs within his windows of time, place, and magnitude), but also partial credit of 90, 80, or 70 percent for earthquakes within: one, two, or three days on either side of his window, 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 units of magnitude, 10, 20, or 30 percent beyond his standard radius of 140 miles. The product of these scores is the summary score, and any score of 70% or greater is counted as a hit. Scientific criticism Of methodology Berkland's method of predicting earthquakes is based primarily on the idea that where tectonic forces have brought rock to the brink of failure earthquakes can be triggered by the tidal forces induced by the Sun and Moon, especially when they are greatest (that is, at the points of orbital syzygy, corresponding with the new Moon and full Moon). While this seems plausible, attempts to identify any such effect generally have been equivocal, possibly because various factors might not have been properly accounted for. An evaluation specifically of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area (done by the USGS in 1980 at Berkland's request) showed a slight deficiency of earthquakes during Berkland's "seismic windows". Although that deficiency was considered statistically insignificant, the overall conclusion was that "the seismic window theory fails as a reliable method of earthquake prediction." A subsequent study in 2004 found slightly more M > 7.0 earthquakes than expected in seismic windows in a ten-year period, but this evened out in longer periods, and overall syzygy considerations were found to have no predictive value. Of predictions Berkland has said that the only real test of a predictive method is how well it performs, and in this regard he claims a "75 percent accuracy rate". However, Berkland's "windows" are so large that they should net about three-quarters of all earthquakes even if they