Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Geologists Might Be Charged For Not Predicting Quake

Posted by timothy on from the google-will-no-doubt-be-found-at-fault dept.

mmmscience writes "In 2009, a series of small earthquakes shook the region of L'Aquila, Italy. Seismologists investigated the tremors, but concluded that there was no direct indication of a big quake on the horizon. Less than a month later, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake killed more than 300 people. Now, the chief prosecutor of L'Aquila is looking to charge the scientists with gross negligent manslaughter for not predicting the quake."

14 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. way to drive by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    science out of your country.

    No indications means they didn't detect any indication. That could be due to poor technology, or perhaps because there were no indications.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:way to drive by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing in the article really suggests that they were wrong given the evidence they had at the time. They're Geologists, not soothsayers.

    2. Re:way to drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Way to drive FALSE PREDICTIONS INTO your country.

      "Uh... to avoid being charged with manslaughter... er... i mean... the data shows that.... there will be an earthquake today... and every other day this year too. Be ready for an earthquake at any moment, because our uhm... data... shows that it could happen!"

    3. Re:way to drive by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope they'll also be suing the mathematicians who developed the statistical analysis tools the geologist used. And the engineers who helped develop the equipment. And me. I did absolutely nothing to help, and am therefore either more to blame than the geologists, or maybe less. It's difficult to tell when it's a bunch of lawyers trying to line their pockets from the deaths of innocents.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:way to drive by horatio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should hold responsible this prosecutor for every criminal he didn't successfully convict or even bother to charge for lack of evidence - especially any who went on to later kill someone.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    5. Re:way to drive by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all about what's reasonable and normal in the profession.

      If other seismologists look at the circumstances and data and say, "we would have made the same predictions, based on the evidence", then you can't fault these seismologists/geologists, because they're not grossly incompetent compared to their peers in the field.

      However, the Deepwater thing was different. From what I've read, petroleum engineers did not agree with what was going on there, Halliburton engineers thought it was unsafe, but BP managers decided to push ahead anyway.

      These types of things should be judged by juries composed of actual peers. Our Constitution actually uses that word ("a jury of one's peers"), but juries aren't made up of peers, they're made up of morons who are easily swayed by emotional arguments (anyone not fitting this description is thrown out by the attorneys). Cases involving science should be decided by juries of scientists. Any trials about BP should have juries composed of petroleum and other engineers. They're the ones best able to determine who's really right and wrong, not some moron who has no job and no excuse to duck out of jury duty, and certainly not some stupid judge who only knows how to administer law, but nothing about technical matters that these cases hinge upon.

    6. Re:way to drive by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And as TFA points out, this is after the government shut up a scientist saying there WAS going to be a quake.

      Predict a quake before one happens and you're in trouble. Don't predict one before it happens and you're in trouble.

      One of these days, we scientists need to drive politicians out of our country. And off the planet entirely.

  2. Vice Versa by broggyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course if the scientist predicted a huge quake and none occurred, then he would be targeted for that as well.

    --
    Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
  3. Fine... as long as... by ATestR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll go along with that argument, as long as we can throw politicians in jail any time there is some economic disturbance that impacts the population. After all, they should be able to accurately predict and prevent such things.

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Fine... as long as... by kg8484 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, throw prosecutors in jail any time they convict someone who is later exonerated.

    2. Re:Fine... as long as... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      jurors, maybe? prosecutors don't convict anyone.

      Prosecutors will sure as hell take the credit when they win because it was obviously their hard work that secured the conviction.

      And, not all things are tried in front of a jury, some are purely in front of a judge.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Science to English by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It appears the statement that the precursor data did not indicate a following quake was taken to mean that there would be no following quake.

    This appears to be a science to english translation problem on the nature of causality and dependency.

  5. Like medical malpractice by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's exactly what happened to healthcare in the USA in the last 30 years.

    When any doctor can be sued for not detecting a disease you can bet there will be plenty of unneeded medical tests prescribed for everyone and costs will skyrocket.

    1. Re:Like medical malpractice by treeves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many doctors will tell you that many tests are either unnecessary, or even harmful. There was a story just yesterday on /. about the radiation exposure from medical imaging. Other tests are invasive, some have false positives and cause treatments, even surgery, for non-existent conditions, and they all cost a lot.

      There was a This American Life program last year (listen to it here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/391/More-Is-Less) about health care costs and they quoted a doctor who tried to convince an attorney/father of an injured girl not to give her an CAT scan when a simple test based on a rule of thumb would suffice and avoid radiation exposure. He had to weigh the cost of the time it would take to convince the dad/att'y. He admitted, he could just give the CAT scan to save himself the time and avoid a complaint. No one would ever blame a cancer she got twenty years later on the CAT scan, he'd get paid more, etc. Many reasons to give the CAT scan. But, in this case, he decided to push the issue saying it was not in the patients interest to do the CAT scan. The dad relented.
      Another example given: PSA test for prostate cancer.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.