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.'"
The research put forward by Giuliani is from the 1980s and 1990s and was found to be completely unusable as a predictor. People make predictions of quakes all the time and some of those will be correct just by chance, which is likely the case here. Furthermore, finding correlation with radon does not mean it can be used as a predictor. You cannot evacuate cities for long periods just to find out that it was a false alarm.
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
This is almost as ironic as when Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana and one-time preznitial hopeful) mocked funds for volcano monitoring in the federal budget, and a week later an Alaskan (monitored) volcano blew up, with an orderly response since the eruption had been predicted for some time. Attention politicians: science is not negotiable. It's part of that reality thing not on your side.
Remain calm! All is well!
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.
'These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news,' Bertalaso was quoted as saying. 'Everyone knows that you can't predict the release of Duke Nukem Forever.'
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.
when someone who knows more than you about a certain topic warns you, listen!
"How you can tell when you are in perilous times. That's when people go out of their way to listen to the advice of engineers." -- DOOM Novel 3 "Internal Sky" p. 70.
This is more like a guy (boy) who has spent years researching wolves to a degree that he has wolf detection methods that pick up on wolf phermones and indicators that systematically suggest when the wolf might *actually* show up.
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.
I shouldn't be making jokes at a time like this. I'm sorry. Please mod my previous comment down. Thank you.
Nonsense. He made the prediction using methods which have been proven to be unreliable. All the current research is against him, and there was no substantive reason to believe his claims had any merit.
Besides, he predicted an earthquake a full week ahead of the one that actually struck. What if he had been listened to and people evacuated? They'd have watched his day pass and started to wonder. They'd be sitting in hotel rooms, or with family members or friends, and thinking about the food rotting in their fridges and the money they're losing by not being at work. A huge number of them would certainly have returned to town by the time the actual quake struck, and the death toll would have been similar.
The problem here is not that someone here using poor science happened to be sort of right, the problem is that Italy is a country with high risks of earthquakes and exceedingly poor construction and preparation.
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
Building structures that won't collapse and crush everybody inside isn't trivial; but it is doable now
It was doable 600 years ago.
Just go visit Machu Picchu, and you'll see.
It lays abandoned for half a millennium in a land of frequent earthquakes, and it's walls are still intact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incan_architecture
factor 966971: 966971
The funny part is, he was *immediately* labeled an imbecile when the earthquake was late.
Oh no - don't tell me the next thing that will happen there is they elect a new government that will make sure the the earthquakes arrive on time
Given the state of the art of earthquake prediction, he was pretty good - probably a bit better than Italian railroad arrival predictions. -)
I just wanted to point out that people are quick to jump to conclusions if it reinforces their reality model.
Giuilani: "Hey guys, earthquake is coming." ... ...
Everyone else: "No it's not, idiot"
Giuilani "Yes it is, look at my research!"
Everyone else: "See, it didn't come. We knew you are an idiot!"
Earthquake: "Sorry, I was held up at the border"
Everyone else: "OH SHI-"
Yeah, well, it's a lot easier to make something structurally sound if it's not expected to have the same occupancy load that would be required for a modern western city. There weren't nearly as many Incans as there are Italians. Particularly since the former weren't Catholics.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. -- Richard Bandler
Given the topic of this article, your sig just got rather scary.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
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.
Oh no - don't tell me the next thing that will happen there is they elect a new government that will make sure the the earthquakes arrive on time
Next thing you know people will be repeating the anti-fascist quote that, "Mussolini made the earthquakes arrive on time."