Despite providing an exceptionally clear example of the basics of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), Wang and Ormsbee <2005> nevertheless conclude that ...using PSHA for risk analysis is not only confusing, but is also inappropriate. I argue here that (1) the results of a PSHA analysis are not confusing and have physical meaning, and (2) the authors' basis for declaring PSHA inappropriate is misguided. I note in passing that the authors consistently confuse risk with hazard. Both PSHA and flood frequency analysis provide estimates of hazard. Risk is the product of hazard, vulnerability, and exposure.This discussion is only concerned with hazard. The authors reveal the basis for their confusion about a physical interpretation of PSHA in the statement,Because it is impossible for the three earthquakes to occur at exactly the same time (1.5 ¿ 10-19 probability at the same hour), the predicted PGA <(peak ground acceleration) at a point of interest> corresponding to the total annual probability of exceedance is a statistical measure and does not have a clear physical meaning (words in brackets are mine(. The total annual probability of exceedance (P) from PSHA is not conditioned on all three earthquakes occurring at once. Using the authors' example, it is the sum of the independent probabilities that any one of the three faults will cause PGA to exceed 0.97g. Summing the probabilities simply produces the annual probability that the PGA will be exceeded in a year. It does not imply the three earthquakes are concurrent.