I actually wouldn't expect aftershocks with the 6.0 earthquake in Napa Valley yesterday.

If one notes the earthquake was east of the fault. Why? In my opinion it was because the Pacific Plate was pushing against the land and transmitting the tensions along the fault further inland. The earthquake was just east of any body of water where there would be greatest resistance. If it were a 'fault quake' it would manifest differently.

News agencies relying on the opinion of residents to raise fear factors are going to be disappointed, but since when does that stop them.

I am curious as to what the waters in the bay was doing during the time of the earthquake.

August 25, 2014
By Laura Dudnick

San Francisco (click here) has been infamous for devastating earthquakes in its history, but Sunday morning’s magnitude-6.0 temblor near Napa that rocked much of the Bay Area appears to have left The City mostly unharmed.

Residents throughout the Bay Area were rattled awake when the largest earthquake to hit the Bay Area in nearly 25 years struck at 3:20 a.m., about six miles southwest of Napa. The quake sent dozens of those in California’s wine country to hospitals, ignited fires, damaged historic buildings and knocked out power to tens of thousands, authorities said.

However, no damages or injuries were reported in San Francisco, according to the Department of Emergency Management. Muni service remained unaffected Sunday, and the two major home sports games for the Oakland A’s and San Francisco 49ers took place as scheduled. And it appears no one lost power from the event in The City, according to PG&E....