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."

26 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 WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      "But, but, I'm so so sorry boss. I couldn't predict the big quake because my crystal ball fell off the work bench when the little tremors hit."

    2. 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.

    3. Re:way to drive by yariv · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is science, you never know for sure. In science you never have a complete answer, just a series of partial, half wrong answers. Hopefully you get better answers over time, but you never know the exact, complete answer. In this case we have a complicated system, one we have very little success in predicting its behavior. And they didn't say there will be no earthquake, just that the minor ones don't imply an imminent major one. I see no problem with this claim (as long as it is reasonable by modern seismology).

      "It's hard to make predictions - especially about the future." --Robert Storm Petersen

    4. 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!"

    5. 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.
    6. Re:way to drive by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Predictability is a continuum, not a binary scale. Earthquakes fall much further on the "hard to predict" side of things, but there is no arbitrary point at which you can draw a line. If a home inspector incorrectly claims a house has no sign of termites, a forester claims that a fire poses no danger to settled areas, or BP engineer claims that the methods used at Deepwater posed no danger to the environment, you aren't always going to be comfortable saying "oops, shit happens"

      Were these geologists negligent? Given our current understanding of earthquakes, we can off-handedly state, "probably not", but we aren't sure. Is it unreasonable for somebody to want a court to investigate further, given the scale and scope of the damage? Not really.

    7. 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.
    8. Re:way to drive by hazem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Winston P. Graves liked consistency in his life. He sat down at the table in his breakfast nook and carefully opened the paper with one hand while pouring cereal into a bowl with the other. He scanned the headlines and noted the "9.0 Earthquake Predicted Today: Mass Devastation!" and calmly looked toward his bowl while he poured the milk. He took comfort in the headline knowing there was no cause for concern. It was the same headline that had been there yesterday. And the day before. And every day before that since the big quake 18 years ago that actually did devastate the city and had killed more than 20,000 people. Following the quake, the attorney general, known for his flair in front of juries, won convictions, and death penalties, for the government geologists who had failed to predict the quake, and for the newspaper editors who had failed to act on the finally accurate prediction of the quake by a local astrologer. Since then, the new government geologists and newspaper editors following the example of that astrologer and published formal predictions of deadly earthquakes every day. Of course there had not been any notable earthquakes since then, but neither had there been executions.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:way to drive by Cico71 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Were these geologists negligent? Given our current understanding of earthquakes, we can off-handedly state, "probably not", but we aren't sure. Is it unreasonable for somebody to want a court to investigate further, given the scale and scope of the damage? Not really.

      Not only that. People should understand some basics of the Italian law system before jumping to conclusions, making comparisons and pretending everyone is an idiot (I'm not referring to you).

      When authorities are notified or simply become aware of crimes, they are obliged to investigate. In this case there were several accusations made by people and prosecutors were obliged to investigate. Just to give some more perspective, charges are for homicide and other related crimes. The researcher that was investigated in the past for saying there would have been an earthquake, was charged (if I remember correctly) for procured alarm to authorities (still a crime).

      Beside the obligation to investigate, I also agree with you that is not necessarily unreasonable to investigate further. I'm pretty sure these guys will be discharged and the outcome of the trial may be helpful in future to prevent similar things to happen (both geologist trying to be less conservative and people being discouraged to make criminal accusations for nothing).

      This helps to understand the technical part of it, but of course there's more: the political part.

      Lately the civil protection department has gone through several scandals related to rebuilding activities of the area and it's close to the current government. Part of the population is pissed off because: they lost relatives, rebuilding is happening slowly and lot of promises remained just promises. The judiciary bench is often accused by the right wing (current government) to have the majority of judges being close to the left wing and to try to overcome the government.

      So, depending on the political orientation, people think either that prosecutors are just doing their jobs, or that they are trying to put pressure on the government accusing the civil protection. You may feel a bit puzzled at this point asking yourself what's the problem if, after all, they are simply following the law that obliges them to investigate. A common argument by right wing people is that there are simply too many notifications of crimes and accusations to investigate on all of them and the judiciary bench selects them (or better give priorities) based on a political agenda.

      So, don't think this is only a matter that has to do with science. It has more to do with the judiciary system and politics.

      Now people can feel free to think everyone here is an idiot :)

    11. 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!
    1. Re:Vice Versa by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Best snippet from the Time article linked to in the first of your WSJ articles:

      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, officially denounced Giuliani in court last week for "false alarm." "These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news," Bertolaso was quoted as saying. "Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes."

      Priceless.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  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. Italy? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the USA was the sue-happy country. Don't we have a patent on it or something? Italy better start preparing for a lawsuit from the U.S.

  5. It was predicted! by tobiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I forget the specifics, but a local technically minded person had predicted this earthquake, largely based on gas venting. He gave a date and it didn't happen, so the local politicians went about prosecuting him for the equivalent of yelling "fire!". But then the earthquake hit the next day. I assume this is a continuing effort on the part of the local politicians and prosecutor to lay the blame anywhere but on themselves.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:It was predicted! by Lakitu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Article on slashdot about this is found here:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/06/1935246

      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.'"

      Oh, Italy, please don't ever change.

  6. 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.

  7. It's a matter of extreme negligence. by tHeNeXuS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, maybe you need to know something about the Italian judiciary system. In Italy there is something called "obligatory penal action", which means that if there is even the simple suspect of a crime being committed, then an investigation must be started.

    In the quake case, the investigation started because the people responsible for monitoring the situation explicitly reassured the population by telling them that there would be no big quake. Any responsible scientist, given the continuous small shakes that were ongoing, would have at least said something on the line "We believe there will be no major quake, but please do not lower your guard".

    And that is why there was an investigation that ended with them being charged for negligence.

    1. Re:It's a matter of extreme negligence. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the quake case, the investigation started because the people responsible for monitoring the situation explicitly reassured the population by telling them that there would be no big quake. Any responsible scientist, given the continuous small shakes that were ongoing, would have at least said something on the line "We believe there will be no major quake, but please do not lower your guard".

      Except for the guy who warned them about it, of course.

      http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6566682.htm

      He was muzzled for attempting to incite a panic after predicting the very same quake these other seismologists said there was no evidence for. In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. There was no evidence, really, not anything definitive. It was just an educated guess that happened to be correct.

      What's really disgusting is the only reason the scientists said anything at all was because the government set up a panel specifically to reassure the population that there would not be an earthquake. So the scientists told the truth: there was nothing abnormal about the tremors, and there was no evidence for an impending quake. They also said that did not mean there would not be a quake, just that there was nothing to suggest there would be one. Italians obviously missed that part.

      The people who should be on trial are the politicians/bureaucrats who set up the panel to begin with, not the scientists who told them exactly what they asked for (and truthfully).

      At this point, if you're an Italian seismologist and the government asks you if there is going to be an earthquake, my advice is to respond with "Fuck if I know."

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  8. 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 coaxial · · Score: 5, Informative

      Corollary 1:
      When any doctor can pad his wallet by ordering tests, you can bet there will be plenty of unneeded medical tests prescribed for everyone and costs will skyrocket.

      Corollary 2:
      When any patient can request test at no cost to them, you can bet there will be plenty of unneeded medical tests prescribed for everyone and costs will skyrocket.

    2. 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.