Speculation on this area apparently isn't new
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4434400/Chinese-earthquake-may-have-been-man-made-say-scientists.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4434400...</a>
[2009]. Very interesting I haven't heard of that before, it's possible, it seems
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir-induced_seismicity#Reservoirs" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir-induced_seismicity#Re...</a>
Man-made? More like man-triggered:<p>"The Zipingpu reservoir’s apparent <i>triggering</i> of the Wenchuan earthquake is an unprecedented case of reservoir-<i>induced</i> seismicity that presents huge challenges for scientific theory."<p>There is way too little potential energy in that reservoir to cause an earthquake on that scale.
> The Chinese earthquake that killed 80,000 people in May of 2008 most likely was not an act of God, a study released today has found.<p>I can understand that for some strange reason is the phrase "act of God" in the USA law system (it is, right?). But why is it in a scientific paper?