Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Forced To Remove Earthquake Prediction
Hugh Pickens writes to mention that Italian scientist Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Physical Laboratory of Gran Sasso, recently gave warning about an earthquake that was to happen on March 29th of this year near L'Aquilla. Based on radon gas emissions and a series of observed tremors he tried to convince residents to evacuate, drawing much criticism from the city's mayor and others. Giuliani was forced to take down warnings he had posted on the internet. The researcher had said that a 'disastrous' earthquake would strike on March 29, but when it didn't, Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, last week officially denounced Giuliani in court for false alarm. 'These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news,' Bertalaso was quoted as saying. 'Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes.' Giuliani, it turns out, was partially right. A much smaller seismic shift struck on the day he said it would, with the truly disastrous one arriving just one week later. 'Someone owes me an apology,' said Giuliani, who is also a resident of L'Aquila. 'The situation here is dramatic. I am devastated, but also angry.'"
My immediate reaction is to say, "Ha! Science, bitches: It works!" and laugh at the officials who denounced the prediction. However, the very fact that the prediction was *so* precise, saying that the devastation would strike on a certain day, seems particularly irresponsible.
My thoughts go to those hurt in this incident. As the official says, though, it's not a habit to plan for stuff like this---perhaps it should become so.
Does anyone have data on how many truly false predictions have been made? Because one out of X might not be enough to condemn the politicos and glorify the scientist. Clearly these things do need to be managed carefully.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
That seems like a pretty good improvement in earthquake prediction. If this guy can consistantly predict earthquakes with a +/- of one week, I'd say he's doing something right, and should be listened to. But he has to do it consistantly. One out of one is a good start.
Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.
How dare you be inaccurate in your warning about the timing of a natural disaster? You caused me to be outraged and dismissive on record in the media! Now people think I'm a douchebag, and it's all your fault!
Must be a European thing. I'm sure nothing like that could ever happen here in the good ol' US of A.
Weak analogy. Getting within a few weeks of correct on an event that occurs irregularly on the scale of decades to centuries seems pretty good to me.
Now, given that the economic and logistical viability of moving a large number of people out of their homes and to somewhere else plummets after just a few days, his prediction wasn't good enough for use; but equating him with the boy who cried wolf(who, you'll remember, was deliberately dishonest, not merely wrong) is a bit much.
Unless the quality of earthquake prediction gets considerably better, the punchline is that the money is better spent on decent architects and engineers. Building structures that won't collapse and crush everybody inside isn't trivial; but it is doable now, which makes it a better investment.
You cannot evacuate cities for long periods just to find out that it was a false alarm.
Perhaps not, but tell that to people who lost loved ones in the earthquake.
my tea leaves tell me that your town is going to be destroyed by an earthquake next week. You better evacuate. If you don't, then you'll be responsible for telling the people who lost loved ones that you ignored my dire warnings.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I think the problem here is saying ludicrous things like "It will happen on March 29th". That's simply trying to get one's name in the paper, so to speak. A more rational approach, if the underlying science fits (and I don't think seismology or vulcanology is at the point where you can say anything definite like this) is to say "Look, I'm getting some very troubling readings here that suggest that a major earthquake is imminent."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
to say "Look, I'm getting some very troubling readings here that suggest that a major earthquake is imminent."
Which would have been met with, at best, polite disinterest. So, in practical terms, the result would have been the same.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Weak analogy. Getting within a few weeks of correct on an event that occurs irregularly on the scale of decades to centuries seems pretty good to me.
The funny part is, he was *immediately* labeled an imbecile when the earthquake was late.
Quite so. What if they HAD left on the predicted date. There was a small tremor. The destructive earthquake didn't happen for another week.
Presumably, it's entirely possible that even being away for a week could have helped them out. One of the bigger ways to end up dead in an earthquake is to be in a large collapsing building and schools and such might have been closed or still in the process of reopening a week later.
That said, the returning people could have been completely caught off guard after returning from what they would consider a false alarm.
I have to say that I'm entirely with the people who were saying that the best method, by far, for dealing with an earthquake like this is to make sure you are in buildings that can take an earthquake. There's really no better way available to ensure that you are never caught by surprise.
They may well owe this guy an apology, after all he did predict it. On the other hand, I'm not entirely clear on whether it would have made things better or worse if they had done what he said to do at the time that he told them to do it.
Unless the quality of earthquake prediction gets considerably better, the punchline is that the money is better spent on decent architects and engineers. Building structures that won't collapse and crush everybody inside isn't trivial; but it is doable now, which makes it a better investment.
Add disaster recovery to that list. When you can't predict a disaster, you make sure you'll be handle it efficiently after the fact.
Also, investing in disaster recovery is great because it helps you against a lot of different threats. Mass terrorism, earthquake, etc. all involve more or less the same logistical considerations about moving lots of people/food/water/medicine quickly.
A more scientific conclusion would have been to use error bars in his prediction; "There is a 95% chance that an earthquake on this date, and a 99% that it will occur within seven days after this date".
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
If the town had evacuated on the day of his prediction, nothing would have happened, and they would have returned to get hit the week after anyway.
What makes one an official "scientist"?
Science is like Journalism. It can be done by anybody; there may be a distinction between professional and amateur, but science needs no particular certification, license, or accreditation.
I really hate this idea that the individual overrides the social, it's a very narrow minded view that causes no end of grief. Sure, we would like to believe we're all unique and special, but it's just not true. We're part of a bigger "machine", just cogs. Sure, we can have individual ideas and attitudes, but we aren't here to merely satisfy our own individual wants. If that's the case we'd be solitary creatures.
The problem with this that has cropped up again and again throughout history is that when humans attempt to place the society's needs over the individual as an ethos of governance, individual ideas and attitudes are, and must be, suppressed.
The more emphasis placed on society's wants and needs over the individual, the more thorough and brutal the repression, indeed oppression, of individual ideas and attitudes. Especially when it comes to criticism of the society's leaders and their laws.
I really hate this idea that society outweighs the individual. It's been proven repeatedly throughout history up to the present day that it causes no end of grief including genocide, wars of aggression, and brutal oppression.
A healthy society and its' governance should impact as little as possible on individual freedoms, ideas, and attitudes.
"That government is best that governs least."-Thomas Paine
Sadly, we have forgotten Thomas Paine and are the worse for it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.