Seismologist Manslaughter Trial Begins Next Week

Lack of evidence of damage.... by gtvr · 2011-09-16 05:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Can the prosecution prove that with proper warning, any specific number of lives or amount of property would have been saved? I doubt it.

Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Colonel+Korn · 2011-09-16 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

No one in Naples has moved away from Vesuvius despite insistent warnings of disaster from seismologists.

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by DanTheStone · 2011-09-16 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by suso · 2011-09-16 06:09 · Score: 1

Sounds more like a lynch mob to me. Someone choose to be in a position where the people could blame someone when random acts of nature kill people, and that seems to be exactly what happened here.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by ThatsMyNick · 2011-09-16 06:13 · Score: 1

Some of the dead might have heeded.
Thats sounds emo-ish, but I do know people who take into consideration how disaster prone area is before they buy a house there.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by MightyYar · 2011-09-16 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

I won't live somewhere if I can't afford earthquake and flood insurance at that location. The insurance actuaries are better at calculating risk than I am :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by __aamnbm3774 · 2011-09-16 06:20 · Score: 1

well said. bravo.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Dinghy · 2011-09-16 06:20 · Score: 1

Anyone who is truly that thorough in picking where they buy a house probably would have been turned away by the frequent smaller quakes, and would have been clear of the area anyways.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by esocid · 2011-09-16 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.
Easy solution: point out Mt. Vesuvius, and tell the populace to follow what happened in AD 79.

If you want sufficient and consistent information, don't sue the people who have devoted their entire lives to doing so, otherwise you'll be left doing it the old fashioned way, not having any information at all.

--
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by d.the.duck · 2011-09-16 06:23 · Score: 1

Now why can't I have mod points when comments like this come up.

--
Where does the signature go?
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by nedlohs · 2011-09-16 06:31 · Score: 1

So as your income increases you are happy to live in riskier areas?
I'm pretty sure some people would rather not be dead even though their property was adequately insured.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by nharmon · 2011-09-16 06:33 · Score: 1

I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by blair1q · 2011-09-16 06:33 · Score: 1

If you're in a position to evaluate danger and you hide facts and issue platitudes, then you're certainly unethical, and possibly criminal.
I say try them and see how the facts work.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by SomePgmr · 2011-09-16 06:35 · Score: 1

I assumed he meant it as a rule of thumb, not a strict, context-adjusting, home-buying criteria.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by MightyYar · 2011-09-16 06:38 · Score: 1

So as your income increases you are happy to live in riskier areas?
Maybe "afford" isn't the right word. I use the cost of insurance as a gauge as to the riskiness of the area. Even within my neighborhood, there is wide variation in the cost of flood insurance depending on your elevation and which side of the creek you live on.

I'm pretty sure some people would rather not be dead even though their property was adequately insured.
I'm pretty sure those people no longer care one way or another :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by shadowfaxcrx · 2011-09-16 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does it matter (to them) if they can? Go read up on the Amanda Knox situation, and I think you'll get the same impression I did - Whether she's guilty or not, the Italian justice system is seriously screwed up.
That this case can even make it to trial is a reinforcement of that belief.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by suso · 2011-09-16 06:54 · Score: 2

If you're in a position to evaluate danger and you hide facts and issue platitudes, then you're certainly unethical, and possibly criminal.
I say try them and see how the facts work.
You're kidding right? Italy is the country that holds the Vatican.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Sal+Zeta · 2011-09-16 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nope. the crime is that they deliberately ignored all the information available at the moment, and they even suggested the people to get back at their own homes after some earthquakes had previously happened in such zones, even destroying some buildings. It's extremely probable that most of such research institutions were pressed to mislead the population due to the local government, which supported the speculative construction industry backed by some companies controlled by the local mafia.
If you can understand, a well-known italian writer and journalist and journalist explained the whole affair here
.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 07:08 · Score: 1

This is Italy.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 07:11 · Score: 2

Yup. Coming soon, doctors will be charged for failing to bring the dead back to life. Way to step back a whole 1000 years or more. The geologists at worst might be negligent and need a reprimand from their professional college at best. But manslaughter? OK, how about charging the government too, because after all they clearly hired incompetent geologists.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by joocemann · 2011-09-16 07:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I should point out (lacking links to slashdot stories because I'm on a phone) that the scientists DID predict the earthquake, but were somethinglike 2 weeks early... they partially evacuated, and in under 2 weeks the authorities initiated "yelling fire in a theater" type charges against the scientists. Once those charges were made in haste, the actual earthquake came and people died.
From what I can deduce; authorities are blame shifting the damages that arose by hastily saying the scientists were wrong instead of admitting that they were right all along (albeit with imperfect prediction).
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 07:13 · Score: 2

and they even suggested the people to get back at their own homes after some earthquakes had previously happened in such zones, even destroying some buildings.
And if they had warned people to stay away and the next earthquake had happened in say, 50 years (very short for geological time), what then? Sued for spreading alarm among the population?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by joocemann · 2011-09-16 07:41 · Score: 1

You just made that all up. F u for doing so.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Pope · 2011-09-16 07:41 · Score: 2

Well, at least it's not Sparta.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by lgarner · 2011-09-16 07:45 · Score: 1

I won't live somewhere if I can't afford earthquake and flood insurance at that location
So as your income increases you are happy to live in riskier areas?
Wow, what logic. It's hard to imagine that someone believes that "I won't do A unless I have B" is equal to "If I have B I absolutely will do A."
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Grishnakh · 2011-09-16 07:45 · Score: 1

No, he's saying that he's not an expert on what locations are risky and which locations are not. Are you? If you are, then that means that you're a professional seismologist, a flooding expert, and several other things all at the same time, which I highly doubt.
Regular people can't be asked to be experts at numerous sciences just to select a house to buy. However, insurance companies have people on staff who do consult with these experts, and then use this information to calculate insurance rates. Regular people can then use these rates to determine which places are risky, and which are not. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work, when everyone's doing their job properly.
Let's use an obligatory car analogy. Part of the cost of owning a car is the fuel; in fact, it's a major cost. But different cars use different amounts of fuel. This isn't reflected in the car's initial price; while cheap cars usually are more economical and $100k luxury cars are usually gas hogs, there's exceptions, and within any segment of the market different vehicles can vary significantly in economy. You can't expect car buyers to do fuel-economy testing on every single car they look at; in fact, no dealership is going to let you borrow a car for a few months so you can gauge the fuel economy over several tanks of gas. So, the government does it for us, by creating a standardizes test methodology and then making the automakers test each model according to that methodology, and then print the resulting numbers publicly in advertising and on window stickers, so consumers can easily find out how any car compares to any other.
It's somewhat similar for houses, except that you can gauge risk by insurance rates (some of which are non-government, but flood insurance to my knowledge is all done by the government; also, in southern Mississippi, wind damage is covered by government insurance as well after Katrina). So if your property insurance rates for a house are sky-high, then you know it's a risky place to live, and you think twice about buying that house or moving there. But if someone isn't doing their job correctly (e.g. government seismologists not communicating the risks in certain locations), then the rates won't properly reflect that risk.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-09-16 07:48 · Score: 1

I know almost nothing about Italian law, but you might need to show that such warnings would have saved lives, but rather that such warnings could have saved lives. If the seismologists had a legal duty to care in issuing the warnings, and failed to do so. I could see some culpability for that.
The case isn't about a missed warning that could have saved lives, it's about the commission issuing a statement of "no danger" that cost lives. From TFA:

Maurizio Cora ... told prosecutors that after the 30 March shock, he and his family retreated to the grounds of L'Aquila's sixteenth-century castle; after the 11 p.m. foreshock on 5 April, he said his family "rationally" discussed the situation and, recalling the reassurances of government officials that the tremors would not exceed those already experienced, decided to remain at home, "changing our usual habit of leaving the house when we felt a shock". Cora's wife and two daughters died when their house collapsed.

The scientists and those who delivered the press conference are pointing fingers at each other, and in the meantime people are dead. It would seem the Italian perspective is "throw the whole lot on trial, and let the court figure it out".
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by timeOday · 2011-09-16 07:52 · Score: 1

True, if people were truly capable of rationality and free of hindsight bias. But they aren't.
If the suit is justified, then it was equally justified *before* the quake. The information was just as "imprecise" and "contradictory" then as now. Yet there was apparently no firing or disciplinary action, let alone a lawsuit. That proves this is a witch hunt.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Amouth · 2011-09-16 08:04 · Score: 1

i would say that depends - if the person who is the expert is telling you that that the smaller quakes are nothing to worry about and not a sign of anything larger and that everything will be fine.. then that person might have accepted the answer, stayed home, and died.
that is the basis of the case - and i can see the reasoning. if they can show that they knowingly made false claims about safety then they have a very strong case.
it would be like NY city right after 9/11 telling the pubic that the dust filled air is perfectly safe to breath and there is no need to try to filter out the asbestos, i don't know if they did that nor not, and i agree that common sense should tell you that you might want to try and filter that out, but then again common sense isn't so common.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by nedlohs · 2011-09-16 08:19 · Score: 2

Wow what logic, "happy to" means "absolutely will do".
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Weedhopper · 2011-09-16 08:24 · Score: 2

Not that simple.

There was someone who "predicted" the earthquake - for a town 60km over that actually sustained little damage.

The seismologists on trial are the ones who called a special meeting to debunk the "alarmist" scientist.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Sal+Zeta · 2011-09-16 08:28 · Score: 2

Sorry, maybe I was a bit unclear on my previous post. Such previous incident happened no less than few days before the bigger earthquakes. And the reaction was something very different than a carelessness act. Some of the people in charge of the local seismic centers were wiretapped some day after talking with local homebuilders and politicians, and was pretty clear that they were aware that what happened was a direct consequence of their decision to ignore most of the advices coming from the center.
They are already standing trial on a different case. What's going on here is being sure that the scientists did everything was in their position to make very clear what was eventually going to happen to the general population, or if they just passively accepted to do as they were ordered.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Missing.Matter · 2011-09-16 08:46 · Score: 1

The Vatican is in its own state, not Italy.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 09:42 · Score: 1

He predicted a a quake along the FAULT.. And he was correct.
He is doing this by measuring rapid changes in the release of Radon gas. His basic working theory is sound, in so much that rapid changes in the release of gasses (using Radon because of past measurements and the ease to measure) along a fault line indicates rapid and large movement in the deep geological formations along the fault lines.
He believes, and he seems to be correct that a network of Radon measurement stations along fault lines could provide a statistically useful way to predict quakes.
He only had 4 monitoring stations, only his own expertise such as it was, and only a small sample set.
And he seemed to make the best scientific based prediction ever done. Ever, anywhere.
The problem, and I don't think the blame is going to the right people, is that _politicians_ decided that 'hey, people are afraid, shut the guy down and tell everyone everything is OK and don't worry about it."
This kept people in this very active area from doing the simple things they have been doing for hundreds of years. Feel a big cluster, spend the night under the stars. But with the official line being 'nothing is wrong, the clusters are removing pressure' people went against hard won tradition and stayed inside their 200+ year old stone and stucco buildings built by illiterate people with no understanding of loads or seismic stabilizing.
They died because of these statements.
The question about prediction does not really apply.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by jonbryce · 2011-09-16 10:05 · Score: 1

No it isn't. The Vatican is a separate country located in the middle of Rome.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by blair1q · 2011-09-16 10:52 · Score: 1

Which they did to avoid being tried for their crimes in Italy. Then they got a horde of Swiss soldiers to protect them from the Italian soldiers. Which, of course, is sufficient.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by blair1q · 2011-09-16 10:56 · Score: 1

You can't sue for the possibility of injury. You have to have an injury first. This isn't a suit, it's a charge of criminal negligence. Same deal. No damage = no charge. Now, if Italian law actually had a statute saying what you said, then they could be charged before the Earthquake, if the prosecutor could show the scientists were not reporting their data accurately. Which would be fine, if they had a statute before the fact. They likely did not, or nobody noticed. But once people died, then you had more charges and plenty of evidence and good reason to investigate the situation pertaining before the fact, and to discover that they did indeed lie about the possibilities.
If they did. The trial will figure that out.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by blair1q · 2011-09-16 10:57 · Score: 1

No, you don't get sued for doing your job properly, and if you do you stuff it up their dumb asses and, if possible, counter-sue for whatever you consider appropriate: abuse of the courts, harassment by proxy, frivolous litigation, etc.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by dark_requiem · 2011-09-16 12:21 · Score: 1

Only if they're a virgin.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by rocket+rancher · 2011-09-16 12:41 · Score: 2

The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.
Easy solution: point out Mt. Vesuvius, and tell the populace to follow what happened in AD 79.
If you want sufficient and consistent information, don't sue the people who have devoted their entire lives to doing so, otherwise you'll be left doing it the old fashioned way, not having any information at all.
The scientists in question not only failed to provide consistent and reliable information, they were told by the government to do so. So much for their dedication to truth. They also helped silence one of their own who refused to toe the government line. If you want to hold up scientists as shining examples of integrity, these are the wrong ones, dude.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by formfeed · 2011-09-16 13:28 · Score: 1

Only if they're a virgin.
A science geek who spends his life looking at things that vibrate? That should count as virgin.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Imrik · 2011-09-16 13:52 · Score: 2

You neglect to mention that it was a politician not one of the scientists that made that suggestion, inaccurately representing the conclusions of the committee of scientists.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by stephanruby · 2011-09-16 14:15 · Score: 2

I think it's more like one scientist predicted the earthquake.
And currently, it's the scientists and the government official that tried to place that particular scientist in jail that are now being targeted by the angry populace.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Sumtingwong · 2011-09-16 17:54 · Score: 1

Absolutely correct. I lived there for three years and, besides the US military that planned and executed evacuation drills once a year, noone gave a shit. The Neapolitans were much more worried about where the trash incinerator was/is (never will be) built rather than Vesuvius.

--
Word!
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by TeXMaster · 2011-09-16 18:03 · Score: 3, Informative

The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.
Easy solution: point out Mt. Vesuvius, and tell the populace to follow what happened in AD 79.
If you want sufficient and consistent information, don't sue the people who have devoted their entire lives to doing so, otherwise you'll be left doing it the old fashioned way, not having any information at all.
The scientists in question not only failed to provide consistent and reliable information, they were told by the government to do so. So much for their dedication to truth. They also helped silence one of their own who refused to toe the government line. If you want to hold up scientists as shining examples of integrity, these are the wrong ones, dude.
If by "one of their own who refused to toe the government line" you're referring to Giampaolo Giuliani, you should keep in mind that the person in question is a ignorant, preposterous asshole with a penchant for conspirational victimism. He's the guy that maintains that he had predicted when and where the "big one" would have hit in that string of tremors, while his predictions were wrong by as much as a week (in time) and around 100km (IIRC; I'd have to check again, been some time since I debated the last time with someone actually believing his crap): errors which are insignificant in geological scales, but are enormously significant in terms of civil protection: had the DPC actually taken action to move the population following Giuliani's warning, the death toll could have been much higher than what it has been (think about it: you move people 100km away from the forecast epicenter location, and they end up being closer to the actual epicenter than they were originally).
There is a lot of blame that can be distributed around for what happened in L'Aquila, but what the inhabitants are looking for is a big, flashy scape goat rather than the actual responsible for the scale and dimension of the damage. Hitting the seismologist is probably just part of a bigger control strong-arming that is currently going on between the DPC and the research institutions that do the actual data collection and analysis (among other things). So while the populace is looking for a scape goat, the ones actually responsible for the damage will carry o their own way.
Most of the earthquake damage was actually concentrated on two kinds of buildings: very new ones, which built on the cheap and without respecting the anti-seismic criteria which are obligatory when building in areas (such as that one) which are known to be at high seismic risk, and very old ones: in these cases, what happened was that some buildings had "custom changes" done by their more modern inhabitants, changes that (not intentionally) significantly weakened their structure, causing them them to fall and to bat against other buildings that would have managed to resist otherwise (domino effect).
The lead responsibility for the actual damage rests mainly on two actors: a number of builders and contractors (the most infamous of which is Impregilo, which is rather well known to operate mostly by corruption —corruption to win contracts, corruption to get paid more than their job is worth, corruption for getting paid without actually doing the work, and so on and so forth—) and the actual local population. The fault does rest on the DPC shoulders because of it being the government agency specifically tasked with prevention and intervention in case of disaster, a task which it was quite obviously incapable of fulfilling correctly: not because of it's failure in communicating correctly with the population "in time", but because of the failure to exert the appropriate control for the whole 20-year span before the earthquake: prevention means checking that the new buildings do satisfy the anti-seismic criteria they are suppos

--
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by TeXMaster · 2011-09-16 18:16 · Score: 1

He predicted a a quake along the FAULT.. And he was correct.
He predicted an earthquake at the wrong time in the wrong place, like he had already done in the past. The guy in question has a statistically significant history of false positive predictions in his past, except that this time the error was geologically small, and still an order of magnitude too large for any effective civil protection.

He is doing this by measuring rapid changes in the release of Radon gas. His basic working theory is sound, in so much that rapid changes in the release of gasses (using Radon because of past measurements and the ease to measure) along a fault line indicates rapid and large movement in the deep geological formations along the fault lines.
He believes, and he seems to be correct that a network of Radon measurement stations along fault lines could provide a statistically useful way to predict quakes.
Since when a 75% false positive rate is statistically significant?

--
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by dotancohen · 2011-09-16 23:13 · Score: 1

That is rather insightful, definitely something to consider when purchasing a new home. Not only for flood and earthquakes, but other natural disasters as well.
Of course, I live in Be'er Sheva and we've had tens of missiles fall on us from Gaza recently! No insurance for that!

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by curious.corn · 2011-09-16 23:23 · Score: 1

A good and fairly balanced exposition of the issue and of the context around it. +1

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Sal+Zeta · 2011-09-17 00:19 · Score: 1

I cleared that in a following post...and by the way, that politician was even on the administration board for the seismology center, even if only in a representative role. But he was a partner for the local building companies, too. Guess who would lose money if such zone would had been judged as "highly unstable"?
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by MightyYar · 2011-09-18 00:24 · Score: 1

Of course, I live in Be'er Sheva and we've had tens of missiles fall on us from Gaza recently! No insurance for that!
Yeah, it's not a perfect system :)
I wonder if their is a Google Maps mashup showing homemade rocket launcher locations? ;p

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by rocket+rancher · 2011-09-19 00:56 · Score: 1

Your point, sir, if you have one? You provide a hell of a lot of assertions without providing any kind of supporting evidence, particularly about the motivations and reasoning processes of scientists, government officials, businessmen, and citizens, so I'm pretty much inclined to dismiss you as a troll.

Which is worse by alphatel · 2011-09-16 05:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.

Re:Which is worse by Jessified · 2011-09-16 06:10 · Score: 1

Perhaps these prosecutors and politicians should be careful. They may be setting themselves up for a burning at the stake when the climate really starts a changin'.
Re:Which is worse by mc6809e · 2011-09-16 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.
Weren't they sued because they were public employees refusing to provide the public with all their data? The public paid for the data and the research. Seems reasonable the public should get to see what they bought.
Re:Which is worse by Compaqt · 2011-09-16 06:36 · Score: 1

No kidding. Which has a more direct relation to death and destruction: Acts of God (term of art), or releasing/plea-bargaining/failing to convict a prisoner/arrestee?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Which is worse by GreatAntibob · 2011-09-16 06:53 · Score: 1

We pay for Defense Department research and data. Seems reasonable that the public should get to see what we've bought.
Re:Which is worse by sloth+jr · 2011-09-16 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yup, agreed. I figure you probably were being sarcastic, but yeah: we do pay for DoD research and data, and we certainly should be able to see that. Too much is classified that doesn't need to be, and that which does need to be classified is classified for too long.
Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

You might as well say "heretic".
Or equate them with holocaust deniers.
Re:Which is worse by PPH · 2011-09-16 07:11 · Score: 1

Which would make sense if the geologists were running around predicting earthquakes that didn't occur.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Which is worse by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 07:15 · Score: 1, Troll

In the meantime, the Martian south polar ice cap continues to recede year after year, proving that human pollution is the cause of planetary warming on Mars. If only we hadn't sent those rovers.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Which is worse by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 07:17 · Score: 1

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I prefer to live by the ULONG.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Which is worse by DriedClexler · 2011-09-16 07:21 · Score: 1

Um, no, not if the people being provided the data don't have the training to properly analyze it and would just end up using it to spread misinformation about what the state of climate science is.

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Which is worse by Mashiki · 2011-09-16 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes because we all know that people "outside the ivory towers" are just "uneducated masses" who have no understanding of things like physics, chemistry and biology. With no chance of having taught themselves.
None at all. That's what we call elitism.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Which is worse by wsanders · 2011-09-16 07:47 · Score: 3, Informative

The refusers in question were academic researchers not government employees. Just because you receive a federal grant does not mean you are obligated to make all of your unpublished data, emails, and records available to extremist crackpots. The FOIA does apply "to data produced with federal support that are cited publicly and officially by a federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law. "
Citation: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/awards/foia.html
There was another case involving a NASA scientist who was simply being harassed by climate-change deniers. NASA has much less leeway since it's a federal agency.

--
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Re:Which is worse by formfeed · 2011-09-16 09:12 · Score: 1

In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.
You liberal, It's not called global warming anymore!
Global warming was bad terminology, because some idiot might think that every single spot on earth has to become warmer for the average temperature to rise. It's global climate change now. Which of course is also bad terminology, because change is good - or at least value neutral. (My suggestion would be to call it "The wrath of God for our sins of over-consumption and disrespect of creation". A bit long, but it would give you a majority.)
Re:Which is worse by jonbryce · 2011-09-16 10:09 · Score: 2

And what's more, it must increase day-on-day with no cooling phases. I predict that in a few months time, people will be pointing to some snow in the northern hemisphere and saying it is totally conclusive evidence that global warming can't possibly be taking place. We have entered an extreme cooling phase in the past 6 months.
Re:Which is worse by Chris+Mattern · 2011-09-16 11:14 · Score: 1

Not a fear without foundation, I grant you. But looking like you're trying to hide the data is much, much worse than anything they could do *with* the data.
Re:Which is worse by Chris+Mattern · 2011-09-16 11:16 · Score: 1

Can I live by snu-snu? 'Cause that's how I've always wanted to die.
Re:Which is worse by t2t10 · 2011-09-16 12:38 · Score: 1

Look at the article: they get sued to release their data and research, which was gathered using public funds. And, yeah, people are asking hard questions of scientists when they are asked to create massive new government programs and expenses. I don't have a problem with that.
Re:Which is worse by dbIII · 2011-09-16 12:42 · Score: 1

Are you are referring to the fucking obvious DoS attack by mail with a co-ordinated bunch of requests arriving simultaneously each listing three countries in alphabetical order with no overlap? Would you prefer these people to work or to waste a few employee years on responses that would never be read anyway?
Re:Which is worse by khallow · 2011-09-16 16:31 · Score: 1

Um, no, not if the people being provided the data don't have the training to properly analyze it and would just end up using it to spread misinformation about what the state of climate science is.
In other words, data sharing doesn't support your ideological goals. This is not science.
Re:Which is worse by tlhIngan · 2011-09-16 17:59 · Score: 1

In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.
In this case though, the scientists were basically saying that there will NOT be an earthquake and to just go back and enjoy the day despite rumbling in the area.
So the local population was worried there might be an earthquake and maybe they should evacuate. The scientists said no, there was not going to be an earthquake, get back to your life, etc.
It's not predicting anything, but more like denying something is going to happen, then it happens killing many.
In the context of AGW, it would be basically saying if we could prove it and it happens because we believed the deniers, we could sue them because despite the data, they convinced us it was not going to happen. (This cannot happen, as the changes are too long term to be able to tell.)
As a car analogy, it's like your car making a funny noise from the engine. Your mechanic says everything is fine and it always makes that funny noise and he won't bother checking it out. On your way home, the engine blows up because that noise was from a faulty valve. The data was there to support it (it was making a noise it shouldn't), but the authorities (mechanic) said it wasn't an issue. And now you're stranded on the side of the road looking at a huge repair bill (new engine) over what could've been a much smaller bill (new valve + labor).

Government accountability by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 05:54 · Score: 1

They say they're trying to hold government agents responsible for not carrying out their mission? No wonder they're being internationally condemned.

Re:Government accountability by TeXMaster · 2011-09-16 18:11 · Score: 1

They say they're trying to hold government agents responsible for not carrying out their mission? No wonder they're being internationally condemned.
The question is not if the government agents should be tried, it's why involve the scientists too.

--
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)

I still don't get it... by Derekloffin · 2011-09-16 05:58 · Score: 1

Even if I tell you the risk of something is insignificant, that doesn't equate to zero, and that means it can still happen. So, I still don't see how they are not expecting actual prediction here when that is the only way to be sure.

Re:I still don't get it... by Derekloffin · 2011-09-16 06:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, pretty much. And a precedent like this could easily begin affecting other areas too. Look out weathermen, you're next.
Re:I still don't get it... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-16 06:36 · Score: 1

The thing is they didn't say, "We think the risk is low", they said there was "no danger". I do not support this prosecution, but the scientists involved acted irresponsibly by trying to convince people there was no danger.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:I still don't get it... by ultranova · 2011-09-16 07:11 · Score: 1

Even if I tell you the risk of something is insignificant, that doesn't equate to zero, and that means it can still happen.

"Insignificant" does not mean "very small", it means "not worth considering". Don't make such value judgements unless you're willing to be held responsible for them.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Not news. by girlintraining · 2011-09-16 05:59 · Score: 1

Maybe they should post warnings under each of the city limits signs; "Warning: Contains earth quakes." *deep sigh*

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Interesting take by Omnifarious · 2011-09-16 06:13 · Score: 1

Now that's an interesting twist on things. Holding them accountable for not being truthful with the public. Depending on the details, I would generally consider the government official significantly more accountable than the seismologists. That is, unless the seismologists were complicit (rather than merely compliant) in the government official's attempt to make things seems more rosy than they were.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Re:Social Responsiblity by burisch_research · 2011-09-16 06:15 · Score: 1

They're probably very good geologists trying to do a difficult job. They screwed up this time. Rather than prosecute them, time and energy should be directed toward improving the geology department, rather than trying to prosecute those who are only trying to help as best they can.

--
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}

Giampaolo Giuliani by Ichijo · 2011-09-16 06:15 · Score: 5, Informative

When one seismologist is accused of being alarmist by the Director of the Civil Defence, forced to remove his findings from the Internet, and reported to police for "causing fear" when he predicts an earthquake, is it no wonder why other seismologists would hesitate to report an impending earthquake?

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.

Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by prattle · 2011-09-16 07:06 · Score: 1

Giampaolo Giuliani is not a seismologist. He is a retired lab technician who used an unapproved radon gas test as the foundation for his predictions.

--
"We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" -- Kurt Vonnegut
Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-16 07:22 · Score: 1

Well, he was an alarmist. He had predicted something like 10 of the last 3 earthquakes.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-09-16 07:31 · Score: 3, Informative

When one seismologist is accused of being alarmist by the Director of the Civil Defense, forced to remove his findings from the Internet, and reported to police for "causing fear" when he predicts an earthquake, is it no wonder why other seismologists would hesitate to report an impending earthquake?
What is interesting is that the seismologists on trial appear to have called a special open session to basically discredit Giuliani (a laboratory tech) and calm the public. There wasn't a hesitation to report an impending earthquake, there was a statement of "many small tremors = no big earthquake = nothing to worry about" followed by an urging to go drink some wine. This caused many to ignore their routine (if a small tremor happens, the family sleeps outside or in a car). The break from routine (prompted by the statement of safety) cost many their families and/or lives as they slept inside "medieval" buildings that were not "anti-seismic".

There appears to be quite a bit of he said/she said between the scientists and those who took part in the press conference, and it's notable that the "commission did not issue its usual formal statement, and the minutes of the meeting were not even prepared, says Boschi, until after the earthquake had occurred."

Either way it's a real mess and many people died, and if the Nature article is correct, the press conference led people to believe it was safe when it was not. This caused more people to die then if a statement hadn't been issued. It's a difficult situation, and I wouldn't want to be the magistrate overseeing this.
Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by TeXMaster · 2011-09-16 18:10 · Score: 1

... and in this case he turned out to be entirely correct.
Nope, he was wrong by a week and by over 50km. He also has a rather long string of false positive predictions in similar situations on his shoulder.

--
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by PastaLover · 2011-09-17 01:10 · Score: 1

What is interesting is that the seismologists on trial appear to have called a special open session to basically discredit Giuliani (a laboratory tech) and calm the public. There wasn't a hesitation to report an impending earthquake, there was a statement of "many small tremors = no big earthquake = nothing to worry about" followed by an urging to go drink some wine. This caused many to ignore their routine (if a small tremor happens, the family sleeps outside or in a car). The break from routine (prompted by the statement of safety) cost many their families and/or lives as they slept inside "medieval" buildings that were not "anti-seismic".

Those comments at the press conference were made by Bernardo De Bernardinis, a government official. The meeting between the scientists was also not open to the public. You're probably aware of this but your retelling of the story makes it sound like the seismologists were directly involved, while apparently only one of them was even at the press conference, which was held before the scientific meeting.
It sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut case against De Bernardinis, but as I read it the seismologists were unwitting (and unwilling) accomplices.
Re:Giampaolo Giuliani by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-09-29 09:15 · Score: 1

You're probably aware of this but your retelling of the story makes it sound like the seismologists were directly involved, while apparently only one of them was even at the press conference, which was held before the scientific meeting.
It sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut case against De Bernardinis, but as I read it the seismologists were unwitting (and unwilling) accomplices.
FTFA:

The press conference and interviews, prosecutors argue, carried special weight because they were the only public comments to emerge immediately after the meeting.
There were comments made before AND after the meeting. As well, I did not intend to "make it sound like the seismologists were directly involved", but the meeting strayed from the norm in many ways. The prosecutors would be negligent if they were to ignore this. My retelling intended to show why there was good reason for suspicion. At the very least, the scientist at the press conference could have spoken out, but he did not.

Next up.... by d.the.duck · 2011-09-16 06:20 · Score: 1

Meteorologists. You did not tell me the icy roads were going to cause my family to get in a car accident. Absolutely crazy.

--
Where does the signature go?

Re:Social Responsiblity by Derekloffin · 2011-09-16 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because engineering has some very well established science behind it, and on top of that you can overbuild to get around uncertainty. Seismology is worlds away from that level of certainty, and you're suppose to give accurate predictions so there is no equivalent to overbuilding.

Re:Social Responsiblity by Jibekn · 2011-09-16 06:24 · Score: 1

Things like engineering design can be tested, to a near 100% accuracy, if not 100%. With things like tensile strength, load bearing limits etc. Its very easy to see;

Customer: "This beam cant support the 10 tones you certified it to hold, why not?!"
Engineer: "I made a math error"

When compared to;

Citizen: "An earth quake happened?! You said there was a low risk?! What the hell?"
Seismologist: "Im not a god, nor do I control the weather, I can only make an estimation of risk."

I know which one looks like they should be liable for damages, and which one shouldn't, very easily.

Re:not crazy? riiiiight by RobertLTux · 2011-09-16 06:26 · Score: 1

I think part of the problem is that the numbers said that an earthquake was "probable" and "may cause severe damage" but management decided to override the numbers and have the report written stating that an earthquake was "unlikely" and "could cause some damage".

The models gave a range of possible outcomes and management had them write in the report the better/best case not the worst case (which actually happened).

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Will happen, but when? should be worry? by gmuslera · 2011-09-16 06:28 · Score: 2

Seismologists (and alarmists) had been saying since long time ago that in some moment a big quake will hit San Francisco area, and the city hasnt even tried to be evaquated. Had been predicted that in some moment could be a big tsunami generated by a volcano in the Canary Islands that could kill a lot of people in the caribbean and eastern north america, yet nothing had been done about it. And somewhere in a (probably long, but last year raised concerns) future the yellowstone caldera could blow, and still North America is populated, wasnt evaquated because that incoming predicted disaster. In fact, this cities are predicted to be somehow destroyed in a not very far future, and still people live there.

Even predicting that something will happen don't mean that it really will, or when, or with a strenght enough to worry about, or that authorities will do something, or that people, even warned, will do anything. If some of those predictions become true, lots of people will die, should the people predicting those things be treated as mass murderers if their predictions ever become true?

Re:Social Responsiblity by MightyYar · 2011-09-16 06:30 · Score: 1

we allow engineers to be sued for failed engineering designs. this is a failed earthquake warning from a person supposed to be responsible for providing earthquake warnings. why is it so different ?

Because most of the time, engineering disasters result very clearly from a human error. Most of the things that engineers do are based on very sound science. Yes, there have been incidents like plane crashes that resulted from misunderstanding crack propagation and fatigue - but most of the time there is a design flaw that violated current standards.

Predicting the size and scope of a future earthquake is based on much less firm science. So long as these guys were within the generally accepted error bars of their field, they shouldn't be prosecuted.

To put it another way, if the brand-new New York Times building were to collapse tomorrow in a mild wind that gusted withing generally agreed design parameters, there would be similar calls for the heads of the engineers/architects/builders. If a freak 200 MPH wind storm hit the building and knocked it down, people wouldn't generally blame the engineers - but would certainly demand that the design parameters be changed!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

brilliant piece of legal work by Zurk · 2011-09-16 06:31 · Score: 2

For all the non lawyers at /. this may seem a travesty but this is such a brilliant piece of legal work by the prosecutor. Not only has he become famous -- instantly, he has a shot at changing the way the country functions and has managed to get untouchable people to be touched. Plus he has managed to get attention from the international community and the heads of his state. I expect that he has a good shot at putting the scientists behind bars after which he will move on to a well deserved legal career as a lawmaker. Expect solid career advancement as he might end up in the Italian cabinet one day.
Consider the response of all the international media AND the scientist organizations -- Scientists prosecuted for failed earthquake predictions. OMG !
Consider what is actually in the prosecutors complaint -- Scientists failed to communicate risks clearly as per their legal duties, which were attached to them as a result of their jobs.
A truly brilliant prosecution. With a good shot at changing the planet in a small way. With a tiny lever, great changes can be achieved.

Re:brilliant piece of legal work by blair1q · 2011-09-16 06:36 · Score: 1

However, it's Italy. So expect the trial, which should last a day, to take 84 years.
Re:brilliant piece of legal work by Bromskloss · 2011-09-16 07:53 · Score: 1

Why would all this put the prosecutor in any sort of favourable light (so that anyone would be interested in offering him sought-after positions)?

--
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities

Re:If they get Amanda Knox's defense team, they're by rahvin112 · 2011-09-16 06:31 · Score: 2

Amanda's defense wasn't to blame. That a justice system could put two people in jail for the murder, then a month later convict a third person of the same crime (and revise the entire story of the crime to account for this third actor, which by the way had absolutely no evidence supporting the story) who was never mentioned when the first two were convicted. This turned a three person sex orgy gone wrong into a four person sex orgy murder. Not only that but the third conviction admits to being in the house during the murder and having sex with the victim and has been accused of other violent acts including rape and assault.

No, Amanda and her boyfriend were convicted because the prosecutor in the case was a lying sniveling asshole that concocted evidence and a damn near unbelievable story to get rid of a case that was generating a lot of publicity during an election cycle. This same prosecutor has been dismissed because he was proven to have done this in the past in creating evidence to get innocent people convicted in high profile cases. (do a search on his name, he tried to build a murder case against a journalist doing a story on him and his inability to solve another high profile murder case).

The third person convicted of the Kercher murder was the only murderer, he acted alone, likely broke in and tried to rape and ended up killing Kercher in the process. After he was arrested he was coached into saying Knox and her boyfriend were involved (amazingly under the exact same story as the prosecution put forward during the knox trial) under the promise of reduced sentencing, even though Knox had already been convicted and there was little reason to offer leniency other than to avoid the prosecutor getting a black eye for wrongly convicting two innocent people.

Re:Social Responsiblity by NotAGoodNickname · 2011-09-16 06:38 · Score: 2

They aren't being tried for doing their jobs, they are being tried for allegedly NOT doing their job. The point is that they intentionally disseminated misleading information and not following the correct procedures, not that they didn't predict earthquakes. At least that is what the prosecutor claims. I have no idea if he is correct or not.

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by blair1q · 2011-09-16 06:38 · Score: 1

Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.

If that's because these "scientists" knowingly understated the facts about the risk, then there's no reason to let the scientists get away with a shrug of the shoulders.

Re:Social Responsiblity by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-09-16 06:39 · Score: 1

The problem here is not that they failed to accurately predict the earthquake. The problem is that they tried to reassure people that there was no danger, when, in fact, there was deadly danger. It did not help that there was a fear monger trying to spread panic and burnish his reputation by successfully predicting 100 of the last 10 major earthquakes.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

An old tradition: by Hartree · 2011-09-16 06:42 · Score: 1

When some surprising calamity happened, didn't they sometimes execute the king's fortune teller for not predicting it?

This makes about as much sense, though I have less sympathy for the fortuneteller than I do the seismologists.

Re:Social Responsiblity by RatherBeAnonymous · 2011-09-16 06:43 · Score: 2

I pulled this from Wikipedia

Earthquakes mark the history of L'Aquila, as the city is situated partially on an ancient lake-bed that amplifies seismic activity.[1][2]

On December 3, 1315, the city was struck by an earthquake which seriously damaged the San Francesco Church. Another earthquake struck on January 22, 1349, killing about 800 people. Other earthquakes struck in 1452, then on November 26, 1461, and again in 1501 and 1646. On February 3, 1703 a major earthquake struck the town. More than 3.000 people died and almost all the churches collapsed; Rocca Calascio, the highest fortress in Europe was also ruined by this event, yet the town survived. L'Aquila was then repopulated by decision of Pope Clement XI. The town was rocked by earthquake again in 1706. The most serious earthquake in the history of the town struck on July 31, 1786, when more than 6.000 people died. On June 26, 1958 an earthquake of 5.0 magnitude struck the town.

On April 6, 2009, at 01:32 GMT (03:32 CEST) an earthquake of 6.3 magnitude struck central Italy with its epicentre near L'Aquila, at 42.4228N 13.3945E.[3] The earthquake caused damage to between 3,000 and 11,000 buildings in the medieval city of L'Aquila.[4] Several buildings also collapsed. 308 people were killed by the earthquake, and approximately 1,500 people were injured. Twenty of the victims were children.[5] Around 65,000 people were made homeless.[6] There were many students trapped in a partially collapsed dormitory.[7] The April 6 earthquake was felt throughout Abruzzo; as far away as Rome, other parts of Lazio, Marche, Molise, Umbria, and Campania.

Large earthquakes have killed thousands of people in this town. The people must have known about it. It doesn't take a Geologist to tell you that if a major earthquake killed 3000 in the town 300 years ago that it could happen again.

But really, "making sure they never work in geology again seems like an acceptable solution."? It seems reasonable to strip a scientist of his livelyhood because government officials misunderstood and made an incorrect announcement? It's reasonable to punish a scientist when the people, rather than walking outside during an earthquake as they have done in the town for thousands of years, stayed indoors because the government told them they were safe? It's reasonable to prosecute seismologists for the town's buildings collapsing in on them selves due to old age, disrepair, or insufficient building codes?

How Many Open Positions Now? by djl4570 · 2011-09-16 06:45 · Score: 2

I expect the Italian government is having a hard time recruiting scientists and engineers to work in government posts. Why would you if some grandstanding prosecutor will go after you because you dissembled like a government bureaucrat. Had they issued unambiguous risk assessments of living in antique masonry buildings the management up the food chain would have been after their scalps for causing a panic.

They denied any risk by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 06:47 · Score: 1

The problem here is that political appointed people doesn't know anything.
When small recurrent earthquakes happens, citizens start asking questions about security and risk in the zone.
Instead of saying "well _maybe_ there is a _potential_ risk, be prepared just in case..." they said "No problem here, everything is ok, no big earthquake is gonna happen, sleep well and shut the fuck up"
And this statement was louder and stronger after Giampaolo Giuliani told that a big earthquake was likely to happen anytime soon based on radon emissions.

So the problem is not that they didn't provide a warning, but that they denied any risk.

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by del_diablo · 2011-09-16 06:50 · Score: 1

And lets be honest here.
We should not blame the scientists, but the politicans.
Why the politicans? Because they are the only people who can FORCE everybody to live in safe houses, by making minimum standards for buildings.
The same applies to anything that everybody saw coming, including the banking crisis and a lot of financial bubbles.

But since we live in reality: Nobody will prosecute the polticians for messing up, and nobody will vote for somebody who is willing to fix problems.
Everybody is apathic, and a dictatorship is only better than a indirect democracy because there will be no random change of seats.

Holding the incompetent responsible for lost lives by Quila · 2011-09-16 06:51 · Score: 1

I fully support it.

Kiss most of our politicians goodbye!

Re:Social Responsiblity by tragedy · 2011-09-16 06:58 · Score: 1

Here's a better question: do we allow engineers to be sued for engineering designs that failed due to an earthquake? The answer is that we do if the earthquake was smaller than the design was required to be able to handle by local building codes and/or the engineers certification. In the case of gross negligence or fraud, the engineer can even get criminal charges like manslaughter. If the earthquake was above the level the design was required to handle, then we don't (unless the collapse somehow revealed some sort of inherent flaw that would have allowed it to fail in a smaller earthquake, I suppose).

The engineer is responsible for designing, testing and overseeing construction. The seismologist didn't build the earth, only knows how it's made up through observation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and sometimes guesswork, and is extremely limited in what actual tests they can conduct. If a seismologist actually performed some sort of testing that could lead to an earthquake, it's currently looking like, depending on locale, they would be held legally responsible for any damage, injury, or death. So, the seismologist has pretty much no power to prevent earthquakes, while an engineer has a huge amount of power to prevent their designs from failing inside operating conditions.

adequate information? by spidercoz · 2011-09-16 07:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Three thousand years of documented history isn't enough? It's not like the place became seismically active overnight. Get a fucking grip you Italian morons. Jesus I wish I could slap the whole fucking country from here.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by ScentCone · 2011-09-16 07:16 · Score: 1

Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions. They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.

No, they've experienced a lot of consequences, but they want someone else to be held responsible, in the form of lots of cash. Typical.

Everything bad that ever happens is always the fault of someone else who happens to have money or represent an entitiy with money available to confiscate/demand. This is modern western civilization.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by theArtificial · 2011-09-16 07:26 · Score: 1

Um, those people are dead, or lost their houses and possessions.

I don't wish this upon anyone and for the record I've lived in earthquake prone areas. This situation reminds me of a bash.org quote where the poster was storing 300gigs of work and misc files on his neighbor's computer via WIFI and the horror of no longer being able to connect to them. Storing precious/irreplaceable stuff in a risky place is not a wise idea.

They've already taken the brunt of the responsibility.

Of course they did, they lived in an area which has a known history of often fatal earthquakes by their own choosing. Unless they were forced to live there by decree of the Government which doesn't appear to be the case then relocation was and remains an option. If tremors aren't a hint and a half alone... no amount of finger pointing will change that the area they lived in is dangerous. Unless the earth splits open and you fall into it or are under a tree which topples the majority of deaths are caused by structures failing. Why aren't you looking to the people responsible for the buildings which collapsed?

If that's because these "scientists" knowingly understated the facts about the risk, then there's no reason to let the scientists get away with a shrug of the shoulders.

Why has it become the responsibility of the scientists for your own Family's safety? Regardless if these "scientists" say it's OK or not the fact remains this place has a known history of earthquakes which has destroyed the city on multiple occasions (or caused major damage to structures and residents within). When does personal responsibility begin? Do you need someone to tell you that living in a flood plane has risks?

Let's hope these scientists don't operate like the rest of Government.

--
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.

Yes by rsilvergun · 2011-09-16 07:37 · Score: 1

because as your income increases, you can better prepare for the risks. Like having your mansion made to withstand an earthquake, and having it rebuilt (on the gov't dime) if it's bad enough.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

court comissioned "state of prediction report" by peter303 · 2011-09-16 07:42 · Score: 1

The Italian court assembled an international panel of nine expert seismologists to write a report on the current state of earthquake prediction. The US representative was USC professor Thomas Jordan who runs the Southern California Earthquake Center. I heard him summarize this report in Golden Colorado last month. ironically it was few days following the Colorado and Virgina quakes.

Seismologists mostly prefer using the term "forecasting" instead of prediction for couple reasons. First, forecasting presents a spread of probabilities like they do in weather. The concept of prediction has a more binary outcome: either it occurs or does not- a subtle semantic difference, but more significant psychologically. Second, the term prediction has acquired a bad reputation in seismology, akin to "cold fusion" in physics. This is because the world spent a lot of effort trying to replicate alleged Russian and Chinese successful predictions reported in the 1970s, but with no success.

Tom mainly talked about how to evaluate and present forecasts, not the prediction techniques themselves. This is where the Italian seismologist may have been behind the current practice. But not to the point of criminal negligence as Italian prosecutors contend.

As regards to techniques, previous seismicity and increases in that have been and still are the most favored method. GPS ground strains, electromagnetic, radon, animals etc have not panned out.

Re:Social Responsiblity by NiteShaed · 2011-09-16 08:04 · Score: 1

I would change that a little:

Citizen: "An earth quake happened?! You said there was a low risk?! What the hell?"
Seismologist: "Exactly, I said low risk, not no risk. That something is unlikely to happen does not mean it can't, or won't happen. There is no way to be completely certain of the odds of an event like an earthquake".

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Re:Social Responsiblity by Amouth · 2011-09-16 08:12 · Score: 1

Or maybe we could do the sane thing and not hold anyone responsible for acts of nature that can't be perfectly predicted and/or controlled?

so your saying that because a hurricane can't be "perfectly predicted and/or controlled" we should hold no one responsible for not telling people they should leave an area that is below see level and is very likely going to be hit by a hurricane in the near future.

there is a difference between trying to predict - and adequately warning people of what might happen.

this case is for the latter - the prosecution believes they either:
A) didn't warn people when they should of
B) knowingly misled the people of the potential danger
C) some combination of A & B

if the prosecution is right then bringing charges against them is the right thing to do.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'

They are right but got the wrong person by Hentes · 2011-09-16 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Did you read the article? Those people weren't clueless. They have lived in a high risk area for generations and knew that if they feel a tremor they should get out of the house immedietly. Which is what they did until the comittee went to the town in order to calm them down (supposedly under government pressure). In the meeting, one scientist said that the tremors in fact decrease the risk of an earthquake because they release the pressure. Wich sounded logical to a layman but is total bullshit. Another scientist who dared to disagree was sued and silenced.The people of the town concluded that there is nothing to be afraid of and left the precautions they practiced for centuries. This wasn't an honest mistake but deliberate spread of misinfromation.

Re:They are right but got the wrong person by Imrik · 2011-09-16 13:54 · Score: 1

It was actually a layman that said that after the meeting, not a scientist. He claimed it was said during the meeting but no record of it was in the minutes.

Re:If they get Amanda Knox's defense team, they're by nomadic · 2011-09-16 08:33 · Score: 1

The most surprising aspect of the Knox trial was not that the Italian justice system is so screwed up; I think most people aware of it knew that. It's that so many Europeans cheered against Knox, presumably because she committed the unspeakable crime of being American. The English, particularly, seemed incredibly anti-Knox, which is doubly sad considering that most of American constitutional protections arose out of English jurisprudence.

Now this will shake things up. by niftymitch · 2011-09-16 08:43 · Score: 1

Now this will shake things up.

No matter which way this goes it will shake up
the entire professional world. A comment about
quakes, fire, flu shots, immunizations the mind
boggles at the things folk might abandon responsibility
for and attack others....

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.

FTA.... by mark-t · 2011-09-16 08:49 · Score: 1

"Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population"

So let me see if I have this straight... they aren't upset about the inability to predict earthquakes, they are upset because they didn't know how severe the upcoming earthquake was likely to be.

In what way is that not exactly the same thing as predicting an earthquake in the first place?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Great way to kill off the sciences by nurb432 · 2011-09-16 08:59 · Score: 1

Who is going to dare study science or do research with threats like this?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

If anything... by DigitalSorceress · 2011-09-16 10:06 · Score: 1

If anything, sue the seismologist's bosses. I'm fairly certain that it was their politically minded bosses who told them to "let's not panic the proles".

--

The Digital Sorceress

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by blair1q · 2011-09-16 10:59 · Score: 1

Then he has evidence that he is innocent and any evidence they present is moot. He can even sue them for false arrest and imprisonment and trial.

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by blair1q · 2011-09-16 11:00 · Score: 1

Everything bad that ever happened is usually the fault of a number of contributors, none of whom should be let free of responsibility just because of some childish libertarian misapprehension of what personal responsibility means.

Re:This is all about shifting the blame by blair1q · 2011-09-16 11:10 · Score: 1

Do you know the totality of the hazard to you in your present location? If so, how?

Because someone quoted their data, or an analysis of it, to you.

If they knowingly lied and you did not know the true risk, and something adverse occurred, you indeed would have a case against them.

The problem with these scientists is that in this case they did, allegedly, operate like Government. They made political statements, to sway the public's emotions, rather than scientific ones containing the true facts.

Your personal responsibility is only absolute when you possess all of the known facts about your risk profile. If someone else isn't telling you about a risk they are hired to tell you about, then they are taking responsibility away from you, and allowing you to reach conclusions you otherwise would not make. If it's a fact that nobody could know, then you should include that an uncertainty in your assessment. But if someone says "I'm the expert and I say the risk is X", when it's really Y>X, then you're going to use X instead of Y. That's his fault, not yours. If you find out he lied to you before an adverse event occurs, you can take action against him, but it will be limited by the fact that he merely lied and it had no tangible consequences. After an disaster, his problems multiply, and you're the one responsible for holding him accountable.

And if you don't, then you're failing in your responsibility to yourself, to your family, to your neighbors, and to anyone else this putz lied to, especially those who died.

Let the trial happen. See what true evidence both sides have. The facts we get here are tailored by lawyers and "journalists".

"I'm not crazy" by sprior · 2011-09-16 12:32 · Score: 1

If when defending your decision to the press you feel the need to use the phrase "I'm not crazy", you've probably just blown your best excuse...

Re:Ooh, do "climatologists" next! by Kaenneth · 2011-09-16 12:48 · Score: 1

Nope, if temperatures fail to rise, that means they were successful in stopping it, thus saving the world. If temperatures rise, it's because we didn't listen to the warnings...

It's just like this tiger repellant rock.

Re:Ooh, do "climatologists" next! by dbIII · 2011-09-16 12:49 · Score: 1

Trillions?
Wow. We really do need to improve basic education standards.

self-educated is an oxymoron by rocket+rancher · 2011-09-16 12:59 · Score: 1

Yes because we all know that people "outside the ivory towers" are just "uneducated masses" who have no understanding of things like physics, chemistry and biology. With no chance of having taught themselves.

None at all. That's what we call elitism.

Come again? What's so elitist about demanding somebody demonstrate the ability to apply their knowledge, and/or demonstrate an original contribution to the body of knowledge he's claiming expertise in? By definition, a self-educated man can do neither. He's outside the channels through which he may be judged competent. He may indeed be competent, but until he can demonstrate his competence in some acceptable way, its better to assume his knowledge is worthless. How on earth is that elitism?

Re:self-educated is an oxymoron by Mashiki · 2011-09-16 19:46 · Score: 1

Really? So we demand that someone has to demonstrate that they have knowledge and can apply to group think, by turning around and blocking everyone from having the ability to view knowledge that they're already paying for. And for those that do study various subjects on their own time, and are learned in them, we should still ensure that they're part of the group-think set.
Good job. Yep. Just because someone doesn't have that bit of paper hanging on the wall, doesn't mean that they're not learned in a field or area of expertise. It means they're a laymen. And that layman can still have a better grasp of a subject when they've worked outside the box. And that's elitism.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:If they get Amanda Knox's defense team, they're by rta · 2011-09-16 21:04 · Score: 1

Your timing is somewhat off. Guede was tried and convicted before the Knox trial even happened. Otherwise i'd say your overview is accurate. Don't forget also the generally exculpatory physical evidence like how the supposed murder weapon knife the shape of which doesn't match blood stains at the scene and the infamous "bra clasp" that was apparently kicked around the crime scene for weeks before someone picked it up to analyze it.

Wait, in Italy they hold workers accountable...? by Targon · 2011-09-16 21:16 · Score: 1

If you take 10 scientists in a given field and ask their opinion about something in their field, you will get conflicting opinions. If these scientists reported their opinions to their supervisor/superior, then they SHOULD be off the hook, since the option to inform the public about ANYTHING is generally held by people other than the individual scientists. How many times have you seen and heard about people who were fired/demoted for talking to the public without permission/authorization?

Italy is suing the wrong people. by Nyder · 2011-09-16 23:37 · Score: 1

They should be suing the pope, after all, he has the ear of god, right? And he's right there in Italy.

Wait, maybe there's a conspiracy against scientist here. God is getting revenge.

--
Be seeing you...

What == GTFO? by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-17 04:10 · Score: 1

1) Seismologists are resident to the area.

2) The earth shakes frequently.

3) ?

Do you really need 3 before you realize you need to GTFO?

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Slashdot Mirror

Seismologist Manslaughter Trial Begins Next Week

134 of 185 comments (clear)