US Seismologist Testifies Against Scientists In Quake-Prediction Case

ananyo writes with this snippet from Nature (for which this earlier Nature article is also background): "'The courthouse in L'Aquila, Italy, yesterday hosted a highly anticipated hearing in the trial of six seismologists and one government official indicted for manslaughter over their reassurances to the public ahead of a deadly earthquake in 2009. .... During the hearing, the former head of the Italian Department of Civil Protection turned from key witness into defendant, and a seismologist from California criticized Italy's top earthquake experts.' Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California, criticized the Italian analysis, which he says was based on a poor model. If the court agrees with Mualchin, the defendants could face up to 12 years in jail."

Comments

Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

This trial is a farce.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking kidding me? They told people there was no danger, no chance of a big earthquake in spite of the rumbling. As a direct result of those improper assurances, over 300 people lost their lives. I say throw 'em all in a cell with the captain of the Costa Concordia and throw away they key...

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Desler]

No they are being charged for telling people there was no danger when it wasn't true. It's like an auto mechanic telling you your car is safe to drive and then you get into an accident based on a flaw they missed.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[jdastrup]

300 people did not die because of their improper assurances. If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time. And even if people took precautions, just as many could have died. People died because of a natural disaster, which cannot be predicted or foretold. I don't care who with what authority says it can or cannot happen, no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[scot4875]

So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake? Should mechanics need to have malpractice insurance?

Shit like this is exactly why we have a CYA attitude in every organization, everywhere.

--Jeremy

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Volante3192]

The flip side is telling everyone they're in danger and then be charged with inciting a panic!

Catch-22 situation, best as I can see it.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[LilGuy]

The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution. In that case it would be prudent to always err on the side of safety and give the population the choice to adhere or ignore the advice, but hold no liability for the warning. But to err on the side of catastrophe because you have to due to liability is not going to help anyone. It will only cause mass panics frequently.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[bill_mcgonigle]

The flip side is telling everyone they're in danger and then be charged with inciting a panic!

Or being honest - "our models do not currently show a risk of significant earthquake, but our models may be wrong. You should always be prepared."

Sounds to me like they were dumbing it down for people who find science "too hard".

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake?

If a court can prove that the mechanic was negligent in their actions, then Yes, he should and will

Amazing that some folks think certain groups are exempt from certain laws...

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Hatta]

The Italian justice system in general is a farce. See also the Amanda Knox trial.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.

1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J.

2) I would rather risk frivolous lawsuits by warning people that Event X may be deadly even though it is not, than for people to die because I was a negligent chicken-shit.

People died because of a natural disaster, which cannot be predicted or foretold.

Then the entire field of seismology is a fraud and they should be indicted anyway.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[DanTheStone]

As I said in November: The crime is (apparently) that they failed to provide sufficient and consistent information for everyone to ignore.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were being charged for telling the officials that there was a small chance of something really bad happening, but it was more likely that it would just be more of the same. Those officials then told the public that there was nothing to worry about and people should go drink wine (or something to that effect).

It was my understanding that the scientists came to reasonable conclusions based on their model and the information available. They reported a small chance of something bad happening. Just because the bad thing happened doesn't mean that they were wrong. If I tell you that you have a 5/6 chance of not rolling a 1 on a 6-sided die and then you roll a 1 on your first try, I am still correct.

Using your analogy, the desired response would have been something along the lines of: The mechanic tells you that your car has small chance (let's say it's the same as the national average) of being in a fatal accident within the next five years so he can't let you drive it any more.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[spidercoz]

Amazing that some folks think certain groups are exempt from certain laws...

Amazing that some folks think that laws and lawsuits are a suitable replacement for personal accountability.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[sjames]

More specifically, that legally safe strategy will lead to a few panics followed by complete inaction preceding an actual devastating quake.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[spidercoz]

Especially since they live in an ACTIVE SEISMIC ZONE. It's not like earthquakes are a new thing in Italy.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[jpapon]

So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake?

Depends on the mistake. If a mechanic replaces my pads/rotors, and then a few days later my brakes don't work, causing me to get in a deadly accident, then yes.

If on the other hand, a mechanic services my brakes, and then my steering fails, then no, of course they're not to blame.

Should mechanics need to have malpractice insurance?

Mechanic liability insurance does actually exist, and would be a smart thing to get. Then again, if the mechanics actions are deemed criminal neglect... insurance won't save them from jailtime.

Shit like this is exactly why we have a CYA attitude in every organization, everywhere.

You mean having to take responsibility for your actions? Accept the consequences of your deeds? What do you propose as an alternative? Accept that it was just a "mistake"? Intent can mitigate some of the punishment, but can't remove it completely. The alternative is a world without repercussions for your actions.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Grishnakh]

No, it's not a fraud, it's just like predicting the weather, only probably less accurate with today's knowledge. You can't expect 100% accuracy, or probably even close. It's a good tool to use (because it's better than nothing), but if you get mad at the forecasters/seismologists when the prediction doesn't pan out, or they fail to predict something bad, then you're using the tool wrong and your expectations are too high.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Grishnakh]

Exactly, it's the whole "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Grishnakh]

I think the end result of this is that there won't be anyone willing to work as a seismologist in Italy any more, so any more earthquakes (which do happen, they're in an active seismic zone there) will simply be a big surprise.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Grishnakh]

Well then it can't be any worse than the American justice system, which is also a farce. See the OJ Simpson trial and the execution of Troy Davis.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[houghi]

"You should always be prepared."

WOLF!

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

They're in a seismically active region that experiences some degree of seismic activity on a regular basis. Seismology is incredibly complex and based on existing models there was no significant increase in the likelihood of a significant seismic event just because there were minor tremors. To put these scientists in the same boat as Captain Schettino is a farce and shows your ignorance on the subject.

These same scientists would still be crucified if they had made a prediction that lead to the abandonment of the city with no seismic payoff.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[dittbub]

if the mechanic said your car is safe when he knew full well it wasn't and then let you drive and kill yourself and others then yes of course the mechanic is responsible.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the mistake. If a mechanic replaces my pads/rotors, and then a few days later my brakes don't work, causing me to get in a deadly accident, then yes.

Do you have proof your brakes failed?
If you have proof your brakes failed, do you have proof that the Mechanic was the cause?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't asked for absolute predictions, they were asked for a risk assessment. Instead of saying "there is about this much of a risk", or even "we can't be sure", they said "there's no danger".

Specifically, there was a meeting held to discuss the risk, and after the meeting there was a press conference, in which the head of the agency said "The scientific community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable". The minutes of that meeting make no mention of such reassurrances actually occurring, however.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[StikyPad]

I don't care who with what authority says it can or cannot happen, no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.

I agree as far as predictions go, at least with the state of science as it stands today, but negligence can be a contributing factor and convey liability to the negligent party. For example, if I built tornado shelters, and my shoddy construction techniques or materials led to the collapse of the structure during a tornado, I could be liable. Same could apply to avalanches: people are responsible for preventing them in many areas by preemptively triggering smaller, nondestructive avalanches, and failure to perform that duty could be a contributing factor if someone died as a result.

As for this particular case, they seem to be saying that if the scientists didn't know for sure, then they shouldn't have said anything, which is stupid. I'm not sure what's up with the Italian courts (not that the US system is any better), but they seem to be focused more on making someone pay than delivering justice. At least for events that garner international attention...

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Dare nMc]

>no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.
I agreed with you up to that point, Certainly no one should be charged with manslaughter, for not predicting a less than a once in a 100 years event like this. But I do think it is the responsibility of a government to set building codes, and emergency services to a reasonable expectation of natural disasters in the area. And it is the responsibility of those to have solid engineering principals behind them. Also I do think if a contractor cut corners, and produced something not up to those designs, I would see them being held to manslaughter charges. Also if they cut corners based on some scientist or engineers advice (that was wrong) again, a charge of manslaughter would then be fair for those professionals even for deaths caused by (more reasonable) natural disasters.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole scenario strikes me as hypocritical. This is just one incident where the scientists failed to "predict" a natural catastrophe, but I'm pretty sure, there were lots of cases where authorities were warned with plenty of time to act, but didn't.

Since this incident gets so much publicity, I think it's pretty safe to assume those people were never put on trial.

Take the US for instance, they get hurricanes all the time, you really think, the authorities always take the right steps for every one of them?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.

So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated. Now if only there were some sort of legal setting in which guilt and innocence could be proven through the presentation of supporting evidence... /sarc

My problem is with the folks who claim these men should remain blameless without even going over the evidence.

I surmise those are the same people who vote along party lines.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[dittbub]

if other seismologists are saying they would have gave the warning, doesn't that tell you something? perhaps we need competing seismologists, you know, so people can get a second opinion.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[mbkennel]

"1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J."

In countries with English-style law. In others, not necessarily.

I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[StikyPad]

I'll see your wolf and raise you a 3-wolves t-shirt.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[mbkennel]

the first wasn't a problem from the professionals actually operating it (they were average level of competence).

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Sulphur]

If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.

1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J.

O.J.'s butler said something about him being in the Yard, and his calls were held.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

"1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J."

In countries with English-style law. In others, not necessarily.

Considering the nation we're discussing is Spain, I think my point is still valid.

I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.

Which nation, if you don't mind? I've been considering visiting (and possibly expatriating to) various South American nations, and I would like to avoid all but the least corrupt of them.

Ecuador seems nice, save their nationalized persecution of homosexuals.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution.

It's much worse then non-precaution. It's the complete opposite of non-precaution. It's a statement of NO CAUTION IS NEEDED. One that was gave to the public by scientists serving on a public advisory board. People changed their behavior based on that "official statement", and that change in behavior led to the loss of life. Many of those dead would have been sleeping in their cars outside of their medieval, seismically weak homes. By and large they would have survived had those scientists not gave a statement of safety. If those scientists hadn't held that meeting and given that statement to discredit a lab tech who was forecasting earthquakes, this wouldn't even be a trial, as most of those people would still be alive.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. If you start charging every negligent mechanic with manslaughter then no one will want the job. You have to understand that everyone makes mistakes and if screwing up 1 in a 100 jobs leads to manslaughter charges then no one will be willing to do the work. Then everyone's car will break down.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

They're basically all fine as long as you're not going to do business there.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

if other seismologists are saying they would have gave the warning, doesn't that tell you something? perhaps we need competing seismologists, you know, so people can get a second opinion.

Interesting that you would raise that thought, seeing as they had a lab tech who was forecasting earthquake based on (IIRC) radon levels. The scientists on trial apparently were convened to refute his warnings. The lab tech had incorrectly predicted earthquakes before, and the advisory panel (of scientists) were allegedly there to calm the public. The official government sanctioned scientists gave an all clear, go drink wine, don't worry about it statement, which in turn led to dead people.

IIRC, some of the scientists in the meeting claim (at least now) to have disagreed with the statement. Either they didn't raise their voices (in which case they should carry some of the responsibility) or they were overruled by the rest of the group. Either way, those in government seem to like suppressing the second or disagreeing opinion, as was being done with this statement of safety.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[demonbug]

Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.

So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated.

It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.

The former Caltrans seismologist has a point, but I'm not sure it really pertains to this case. Earthquake frequency analysis is a great tool for determining something like insurance rates, where you are trying to figure out how likely it is for an earthquake of x magnitude to occur in y period of time. From a public safety standpoint, the primary concern should be the maximum expected earthquake magnitude, because this is what you need to design your infrastructure to. Frequency analysis does come into play here, as it might not make economic sense to design to the largest earthquake ever recorded (or that there is evidence for), but it offers absolutely no guarantees - just because the largest expected quake is a 6.5, you just had a 6.5 three years ago so on average another shouldn't occur for another three thousand years, doesn't mean that another 6.5 won't occur next year.

The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Spain? Might want to check the article again. ;^)

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Hentes]

This exactly. The "prediction" was not a result of science, but of political pressure.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Eponymous Hero]

italy, not spain. where did you get spain from?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[RocketRabbit]

Yes, because crying wolf is exactly the same as saying "there is evidence of a wolf in the area but we can not be sure."

Go ahead with that piss poor attitude. With it you will never understand why this trial is happening, or why people question global warming.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Volante3192]

Sounds to me like they were dumbing it down for people who find science "too hard".

Like...the Italian Government?

It doesn't help that this:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientist_says_he_predicted_Italy_earthquake,_was_ignored
happened a month before.

I'm used to this. I have this site bookmarked and amuse myself with all the colored squares:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/

There's always 3.0s and 4.0s on there. Does that mean CA is getting a 6.3 in a month? Might. I'd never bet on it though and the odds would be against it.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

2) I would rather risk frivolous lawsuits by warning people that Event X may be deadly even though it is not, than for people to die because I was a negligent chicken-shit.

Assuming you're not just trolling since you didn't go AC, you might want to consider the question of what is more damaging a false negative or a false positive in this case. The simplistic and naive response you gave above seems to indicate that you think one is harmless and the other is massively costly. What happens if warning people leads to supply shortages and riots....or unnecessary evacuations and the related costs and deaths. My point isn't that you got it wrong necessarily but that you're being naive about how it should be judged.

You need to figure out the expected cost of a proper positive or negative prediction (cost being a hazy term but you need a unit in which you can express various outcomes such as deaths, damage, etc.), the expected costs of a false positive, the expected cost of a false negative and the probabilities of each occurring before you can make a rational decision on how valuable a warning would have been or what type of warning should be issued. I don't know enough about the details of what information they had and what assurances they gave so I can't comment on their choice of actions but it's not as simple as you make it.

To be more of a jerk and less rational about it, given your request however I would like to warn you of a few things that may happen tomorrow that could lead to your death: asteroids, volcanoes, earthquakes, lightning, terrorists, automobiles, the bubonic plague, ebola, drowning, slipping and falling, and so on and so forth...and don't forget the 2 leading causes of accidental and untimely deaths...stupidity and bad luck. That warning isn't particularly useful but you've been warned. Fortunately my version was so extremely silly that it likely won't lead to any real action by you but what if it were believable enough that you took extreme measures to avoid all of these improbably outcomes. The cost to you of my false warning could be extreme and when compared to the probability of their occurrence extremely harmful on the whole.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.

Agreed.

The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.

Precisely.

When in doubt, keep your trap shut.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[canajin56]

No, it's like they got in several small accidents, and asked a mechanic "Do all these little accidents mean a big one is coming?" and then suing him because he said "no, that's crazy" but they DID get in a big accident later. They are on trial for saying that little earthquakes don't indicate a big one is coming. This is totally true, but because little earthquakes ALSO don't mean that a big one ISN'T coming people died that might have fled the city without that reassurance. Similar to how people die in earthquakes due to scientists not giving a similar warning "no earthquakes could mean a big one is coming" so you should stay fled at all times.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy in general is a farce.

See also Amanda Knox's parents being tried for slander for repeating what Amanda told them about police striking her. In America allegations of police misconduct tend to result in an investigation of the police. In Italy allegations of police misconduct apparently get you charged with slander.

See also the Cowardly Captain's wife complaining about how he was portrayed in the media. Didn't hear much complaining when the Italian media was trashing Amanda "Foxxy Knoxy" Knox.

See also Jersey Shore. Several generations removed from Italy and the "mindless moron" genes are still expressing.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the end result of this is that there won't be anyone willing to work as a seismologist in Italy any more, so any more earthquakes (which do happen, they're in an active seismic zone there) will simply be a big surprise.

All we have to do is wait for a really devastating event that could have been predicted by the "poor models" and then sue the current plaintiffs for unexpected damages to that region.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

italy, not spain. where did you get spain from?

... not re-reading the summary before clicking 'Post'.

same thing anyway, right? :D

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[wisty]

I'm not a seismologist, but I've worked with them.

The general consensus is, predicting earthquakes is impossible. Even if you think a "big one" is coming, you don't know if it's minutes or decades away. The timing is impossible to predict. *Sometimes* they get lucky, but it's just that - luck.

The only thing you can do is predict the risk of quakes, and encourage local planners to enforce earthquake proof buildings. In earthquake-prone areas, wooden houses are a good idea, and unreinforced masonry is a death-trap. In hurricane-prone areas, masonry is better, and living below the flood-lines is a death-trap.

The bad decision was to let people live in unreinforced masonry death traps, in a quake-prone area.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

Bullshit. If you start charging every negligent mechanic with manslaughter then no one will want the job. You have to understand that everyone makes mistakes and if screwing up 1 in a 100 jobs leads to manslaughter charges then no one will be willing to do the work. Then everyone's car will break down.

Here's 1
Here's 2
and here's 3

Seems the bullshit you proclaimed is on your face. =D

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[nonsequitor]

The case against them is based on negligence. By not considering the worst case scenario and preparing for it, they've been failing the public trust. The expert is testifying that post earthquake 2009, the building codes still are inadequate since they do not consider the worst case scenario if it is an infrequent event. The fact the model they are currently using, was developed in California, and is now recognized by the scientific community as a whole as flawed, to the point where it is no longer taught to students, could be considered negligence.

I am not an Italian lawyer, nor any other type of lawyer for that matter.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing that some folks think that laws and lawsuits are a suitable replacement for personal accountability.

No one would have had to sue the mechanic if he'd taken personal responsibility for his mistake. Lawsuits are required, because people and especially corporations aren't going to hold themselves personally accountable if they can profit by doing otherwise.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

When an empirical scientist makes a statement like "there is no danger", they mean something like "the level of danger is below threshold X to within margin of error Y". No seismologist would ever seriously say that there's no chance of a serious earthquake even five minutes from now, no matter what all their gathered instrument data and statistics tell them. Statements like "there is no danger" are for public consumption because the public, on the whole, doesn't really have a clue what these people actually do.

This court case is like prosecuting sports commentators for manslaughter because they predicted a victory for the local team, but the local team lost and the crowd rioted and people were killed. Predicting earthquakes that acutely simply isn't their job. Whether they did a good job or not, this trial is a farce. It's just a mob lynching taking place in a courthouse. Some of the heavily publicized (internationally publicized anyway) court cases in Italy recently (such as the Amanda Knox case) seem to fall along those lines. All politics and little real concern for justice, the victims, or the accused.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Hatta]

In America allegations of police misconduct tend to result in an investigation of the police.

Only occasionally. Usually police misconduct is investigated by an internal review board and white-washed. It has to be really egregious before there's any action, usually taken by the feds.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Asic Eng]

That's not why they are being charged:

Guido Bertolaso, former head of the Department of Civil Protection [...] a few weeks ago a wiretap revealed that he had apparently set up the meeting to convey a reassuring message, regardless of the scientists' opinion. [...] Mualchin said that seismic hazards were not properly assessed in L'Aquila. [...] "They [the scientists] were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever" he said.

Now those accusations may not be correct, but the charge is not that they were supposed to be psychic, but that they gave knowingly wrong advice.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Rockoon]

300 people did not die because of their improper assurances. If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.

False dichotomy.

The problem is that they spoke with authority saying that there would not be a big quake, when they knew full well that their knowledge didn't go to those lengths. They weren't honest about it. Its really that simple.

This isnt an either/or situation. It wasn't just "no there wont" or "yes there will." The truth was neither, but they chose to say "no there wont."

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

But this isn't a case of your mechanic making a mistake fixing your car. This is the mechanic doing your yearly vehicle inspection going through the checklist and checking everything off as safe based on the guidelines. They didn't find any play on the wheels, or anything the standard guidelines say is a problem. There was a peculiar harmonic vibration similar to, but not exactly the same as, others they've felt before that weren't a problem. They passed the car. The next day, the front wheel fell off on the highway and you die. Now the mechanic faces manslaughter charges because they didn't recognize that the harmonic vibration they felt was indicative of a problem that wasn't on their checklist.

Ok, you're dead. That's not a good thing. You also might have been better off with a better mechanic who would have recognized the sound as a problem and failed your car. Except that there might not be that many mechanics who would have. The sound was very close to sounds that previously never caused a problem. For that matter, it might have been exactly the same, but in this one freak case, it was a problem. It's hard to say because the physical properties and processes in the struts on your car happen to be very complex and still quite poorly understood (if we're going to keep the car analogy applicable to the real situation).

This all does depend on whether the scientists were doing their jobs and not playing politics, of course. If the decision was pure politics, then maybe I'd support action. It's extremely unlikely that's the case, however. It's likely that the scientists felt that there was genuinely little danger. It's an easy prediction to make because 9 times out of 10, it's true.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[brantondaveperson]

This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's implicit from the sentence that the answers to both your questions is yes. And you are being an ass.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.

Another Nature article on this subject:

From when he was a young boy growing up in a house on Via Antinori in the medieval heart of this earthquake-prone Italian city, Vincenzo Vittorini remembers the ritual whenever the family felt a seismic tremor overnight. "My father was afraid of earthquakes, so whenever the ground shook, even a little, he would gather us and take us out of the house," he says. "We would walk to a little piazza nearby, and the children — we were four brothers — and my mother would sleep in the car. My father would stand outside, smoking cigarettes with the other fathers, until morning." That, he says, represented the age-old, cautionary "culture" of living in an earthquake zone.

It may be a strange idea if you don't live in an area that is seismically active. However, this was their way of life. They would go out to a piazza and sleep in the car. Much less of a death-trap then the situation you are imagining.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't expect 100% accuracy, on which ground did they state "there is NO danger, stay at home"?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

The question there is, does the scientist whose method worked that time and predicted the earthquake get charged with manslaughter as well? After all, if he hadn't made inaccurate predictions so many times in the past, he might have been taken seriously this time.

Who is to blame for the loss of the sheep? The boy who cried wolf, or the townspeople who didn't come to help him fend it off because he'd cried wolf so many times?

Earthquake prediction is hard. It's unsurprising that mistakes happen. Lynching scientists for this sort of thing is not going to make it any better in future. It will just lead all seismologists working in Italy to always predict disaster in the future.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[brantondaveperson]

I live in Christchurch. We're pretty good with earthquakes here. And I'm telling you that the big earthquake that hit us last year and killed just over 180 people would have been just as deadly even if everyone had lived their lives by your cute little story. The reality of earthquakes is that sometimes they're heralded by a sequence of tremors, and sometimes they're not.

Christchurch is probably a good example here for another reason. We had two significant earthquakes, and I'm sure that for a while after the first one while the aftershocks were very common (multiple each day) people were very wary. But after a while you just have to get back to real life, and when six months later the deadly February earthquake struck the centre of the city was once again full of people. Many of those people died, and some of them were killed in their cars by falling masonry.

When the enquiry into what caused the collapse of so many buildings in February returns its findings, I am quite sure that some criminal action will be taken. Some of the collapsed building were declared safe but were in fact not.

My point is that living ones life by running out of the house every time you feel a tremor is
a) Not an option for 90% of people .
b) A complete waste of time.

People are dead in Italy because the buildings were not up to scratch. There is no other reason.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[meerling]

We have quakes where I live all the time, just had a 4 or 5 point a couple days ago. Lesser quakes do NOT mean that a big one is imminent.

Does that number seem high to you? It's not really. Remember, these numbers are on a scale (they don't use the richter scale anymore, but I forget the name of the current one.) so each point is worth a lot more than the previous point.

Also, the geologic structures counts for a lot as well. We have oodles of faults here, and those help to dissipate the energy of any quake. End result is that if you aren't right on top of a big one, it probably won't even knock stuff off wall or cupboards.

If you're curious, I'm in Oregon. To be honest, I've only noticed 2 of our quakes in my entire life, and that was only because the hanging plants inside started swinging for no apparent reason. Honestly, I'd like to be in a big one to know what it's like, just don't like the idea of anyone getting hurt.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[brantondaveperson]

c) Probably more dangerous because you're on the move rather than hiding under the table - which is a much safer place to be if something does happen. Especially if it's a nice solid old-school rural Italian table.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Dishevel]

They did not fail to predict. Well they did but that is not why they are in court.
They are there because after many rumblings they assured people that there was no chance of any big quake.
They were stating fact like they knew it.
They were idiots at best.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

Earthquake prediction is hard. It's unsurprising that mistakes happen. Lynching scientists for this sort of thing is not going to make it any better in future. It will just lead all seismologists working in Italy to always predict disaster in the future.

I have no doubts of the difficulty of predicting earthquakes. I wouldn't fault the scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. This really has nothing to do with actually predicting earthquakes. It's about "the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population." (from this article)

They said "no danger" in area KNOWN for it's seismic reputation. This caused people to ignore basic safety procedures.

Never mind that they are scientists, they were in a position of trust, and they gave or allowed blatantly wrong advice to be given. Either their science was negligent, or their warnings were. Under no circumstances should "no danger" have been declared in this case.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

Well you're more then welcome to take your cute little story over there are explain that to them. My "cute little story" isn't really mine. It's the prosecution's.
Applying your personal experience in your area, to those who survived the disaster in L'Aquila is shortsighted at best. Your complaints about how people survive earthquakes in other areas doesn't make them less effective. If you lived in that region, your stubbornness, along with your options "a and b" would have likely led to your death long before this disaster happened.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[treeves]

New insult: "Bullshit on your face!" (better yet, spoken with an Italian accent) "Bullshit-a on your face-a!"

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Dahamma]

Exactly - I'm still waiting for the first successful lawsuit against a meteorologist for ruining someone's picnic (or more seriously, failing to predict a tornado or the exact path of a hurricane).

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Dahamma]

Actually, it is possible to intentionally cause an avalanche ;) Otherwise I would tend to agree (that is until an earthquake caused by natural gas fracking wipes out Oklahoma City...)

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Meeni]

Aside from lawful accountability, what type of personal accountability are you referring to. Hitmen, mob rage ?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[TFAFalcon]

So they should give an urgent warning whenever there is even a possibility of a quake?

And what happens after they predict a quake a few times and no quake happens, or the quakes are minor? Do you think the public is going to listen to them when they give the next warning?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[brantondaveperson]

That's a bit mean. It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.

I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.

I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely a farce...and the biggest fraud is the 'expert' from California...

a seismologist from California criticized Italy's top earthquake experts.' Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California

So, tell us, Lalliana Mualchin about all of your earthquake predictiions...when is the next 'big one'? Time, date, location, please. Fill us in with your 'better model'. Tell us about all of your successes in predicting previous earthquakes, etc. This idiot should be in jail for fraud.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[statusbar]

But this is exactly what happened:

http://newsbizarre.com/2009/04/giacchino-giuliani-italian-predicted.html

An Italian scientist, Giacchino Giuliani says he tried to warm the people in the earthquake devestated city of L'Aquila that a massive disaster was imminent only to be told he was an "imbecile".

An alarmed Giacchino Giuliani reportedly strapped loudspeakers to cars and vans and drove around the city in late March warning people that an earthquake was imminent due to increased activity involving radon gas.

"There are people who must apologize to me, and they must have the weight of what occurred on their conscience," Giacchino Giuliani said.

Observations of underground water before Sundy nights earthquake were also observed by Giacchino Giuliani but the man employed by a physics institute at Gran Sasso said he felt helpless as he knew Italian police would arrest him for further scare mongering.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[spike hay]

The risk was greater than normal, but still small. Earthquake swarms like occured in L'Aquila happen all the time. Instead of being 1 in 100000 or so like normal, it was 1 in 200 or so. Still small. Do you think the town should be evacuated 200 times for every earthquake? That's an impossibility. I think the scientists could have communicated that there was some risk better, but suggesting evacuation is ridiculous.

  Do you know who is actually to blame? The local councils for non-existent enforcement of building codes. Most of the deaths were caused by shoddily constructed buildings collapsing. Some of them had structural concrete mixed heavily with sand.

This sort of malicious prosecution has a chilling effect on scientists. Now fearing prosecution, scientists will be unwilling to study seismic hazards in Italy. Heck, they're getting rid of several of their best right here. I don't know what the deal is with the Italian judicial system, but it's out of control.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

It's my understanding that "no danger" is a translated and possibly paraphrased version of what a mouthpiece said to the press and that what the mouthpiece said was a paraphrased version of what the scientists said. If someone can show a well-translated transcript of exactly what was said in their meetings, I might feel differently, but until then, it looks a lot like they're being lynched for nothing. The people of Aquila are just making a human sacrifice to the earthquake gods.

I've now read the article you linked to after writing the previous paragraph and one bit stands out to me: "others see the case as an indictment of the obfuscating, probabilistic language with which scientists characterize the uncertain potential of natural disasters." So, essentially, the seismologists are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can either explain the risk factors in clear probabilistic terms which the public considers to be "obfuscating", or thy can say things like "no danger", which was not actually a direct statement from the scientists anyway, and was said after multiple tremors a day for months on end and before the 3.9 hit a few hours before the big one. When the 3.9 hit, the seismologists were almost certainly already working on a new assessment of the situation.

It looks like the sorts of things the scientists actually said were:

"It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

and:

"If you live in L'Aquila, even if there's no swarm, you can never say, 'No problem.' You can never say that in a high-risk region."

It looks like the "no danger" statements were coming from Bernardo De Bernardinis, who is a hydraulic engineer by training, not a seismologist, and was the Vice Director of the Department of Civil Protection. Clearly the "no danger" statement shouldn't have been taken at face value since the area was known to be dangerous and the buildings were known to be deathtraps in an earthquake. Clearly the recent events didn't somehow make the area safer, so the statement should have been something more like "there's no extraordinary new danger".

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[funkylovemonkey]

Except that using Radon to predict earthquakes is not recognized by the scientific community as there has been no statistical correlation between the two. The issue has been studied extensively since the 1970s when a case study found an increase in radon in the ground water prior to an earthquake. At the time it was thought it might be the key to unlocking earthquake predictions, which still are incredibly difficult to narrow down (some faults for instance only produce major earthquakes every few hundred years, so the range of when that fault could go off has a plus or minus of centuries). However after extensive studies over the next two decades there was no statistical proof that Radon was any predictor. Most earthquakes occur without any increase in radon prior, and by the same token radon increases have been monitored without any corresponding earthquake. What makes radon even more disreputable is that it is used by charlatan's out to get their names in the paper, because if they predict earthquakes enough every once in a while they get it right (which is easy to do since Earthquakes generally occur in narrow zones on the earth and active faults can produce hundreds of earthquakes a year). The scientists on trial were most likely reacting strongly because the warning was based on a disproven hypothesis. Sadly it's difficult to ascertain whether they were really being negligent and saying there's no possibility of any earthquake at all (which seems like a stupid thing to say since obviously there's always a chance in a major fault zone) or if they simply were debunking this particular lab tech who was making noise in the media trying to make a name for himself. Unfortunately since all the news is secondary sources summarizing and retelling the truth is difficult to gauge. Ultimately though the real problem here has to do with the lack of enforcement of earthquake codes which would have saved lives.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[pla]

Sounds to me like they were dumbing it down for people who find science "too hard".

And the very existence of this trial proves them right.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Method used by Italian seismologists which appears to be main criticism of US seismologist: probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA)

Method identified in NIST GCR 11-917-15: Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses: PSHA

NIST GCR 11-917-15 is a main reference on National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Web Site.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Web Site are the subject matter experts for FEMA for earthquakes.

Method recommend by US Seismologist that is often not even taught in school anymore: deterministic seismic-hazard analysis.

In essence the expert is saying the method that the U.S. apparently still uses, should not have been used.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[cffrost]

same thing anyway, right? :D

"When in doubt, keep your trap shut." ;D

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[crutchy]

if any government knew the world was going to end, do you think they would inform the public before scurrying off to their bunkers?

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to be a scientist now? Poor pay and they throw you in jail for failing to predict EVERY fracking future outcome..!
The same process have been used to jail those who predicted calamity and nothing happened.
Idiot society here we come^H^H^H^Hare.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Attila Dimedici]

That is because you did not read what they actually said. They did not say, "We do not see any reason to beleive there is any increased risk of earthquake at this time." They said, "There is NO RISK of a major earthquake at this time." The emphasis was in their statement at the time it was made. The fact that they made this statement in response to an uninformed fearmonger who was stirring up fears based on bad science is a somewhat mitigating factor.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[ThatsNotPudding]

Where I live (the Midwest),...

Please tell me you are West of the Mississippi at the very least. The folks in Indiana, Ohio, etc. who still use that phrase apparently were never taught about the Louisiana Purchase.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Volante3192]

You're not that well versed with earthquakes are you...

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, yea; Samuel Clemens FTW.

Damn Ohio Valley carpetbaggers, tryin' to jack our terminology...

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Attila Dimedici]

You're not that well versed with earthquakes are you...

???

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

That's a bit mean.

I'm sorry if the facts are mean.

It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.

From the nature article:

As part of the prosecution's case, Picuti argues in his brief that local residents made fateful decisions on the night of the earthquake on the basis of statements made by public officials outside the meeting.

It is the story the prosecution is telling. They are making it their own by fitting it within the constraints of the law of their country.

I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.

I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.

So if you have a small tremor in an area known for it's seismic issues, the tremor passes, and everyone goes outside to a safer area, as they have done for all their lives, that's nor practical? Yet it saved the lives of those who followed this practice.
Yes, buildings that fall down in earthquakes kill people. But advisory panels that tell people that it's safe to ignore the basic safety practice they've followed their entire life, they kill people as well.

The people who ignored the public statement left their homes after the first tremor. They're alive. But I suppose that's not practical to you. It's probably a dangerous idea.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is quite different from predicting a sports victory.

Earthquakes are common in that area. The people have historically altered their behaviour based on the threat of imminent quakes, such as by sleeping in cars. There had been various mild tremors suggesting that a large quake was imminent. The seismologists met, and a spokesperson announced that they had concluded that the mild tremors were actually an indication that a large quake was not going to happen. As a direct result of this statement, people stopped their existing preparations for the quake, and resumed normal activities. Then the quake happened.

It is for the courts to determine whether the spokesperson was accurately representing the consensus of the seismologists, therefore it is currently unclear whether the spokesperson is at fault for misrepresenting them, or the seismologists are at fault for arriving at such a bad conclusion.

The people should not have been told that there was no danger, as it directly impacted their behaviour and led to some unnecessary deaths. Not all deaths could have been prevented, but with the precautions that people were already used to taking, some of them could have been.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Bobfrankly1]

It looks like the "no danger" statements were coming from Bernardo De Bernardinis, who is a hydraulic engineer by training, not a seismologist, and was the Vice Director of the Department of Civil Protection. Clearly the "no danger" statement shouldn't have been taken at face value since the area was known to be dangerous and the buildings were known to be deathtraps in an earthquake. Clearly the recent events didn't somehow make the area safer, so the statement should have been something more like "there's no extraordinary new danger".

Barberi was among the four who held the press conference that gave the "no danger" statements. The article places him among "Italy's most respected geophysicists". If he viewed this information as incorrect or as a misstatement, why didn't Barberi correct him?

The people of Aquila are just making a human sacrifice to the earthquake gods.

Funny that you should draw this perspective. I was thinking how many people place scientists on the god pedestal, and are insisting they be exempt from any changes simply because the term "scientist" is involved.
Credit to you sir, for at least examining the facts and making a well thought out argument, instead of playing the "scientists are my god so they can't be wrong" card like so many others have done. =D

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Grishnakh]

The USA may have a lot of problems, but apparently it's not quite as screwed-up as Italy. I guess the Italians are lucky they don't have hurricanes and tornadoes like we do, or else there'd be no end to their lawsuits, or more likely they just wouldn't have any meteorologists.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

Barberi was among the four who gave the press conference, but what did _he_ say? Sure, politics may have played a role, which isn't great, but was he supposed to jump in and have a public argument over semantics? What did he actually say during his part in speaking? Or did he not actually speak at all during the press conference? And what about the other scientists who weren't at the press conference? The article also mentions that "Barberi himself had compiled a massive census of every seismically vulnerable public building in southern Italy; the survey, according to the prosecution brief, indicated that more than 550 masonry buildings in L'Aquila were at medium–high risk of collapsing in the event of a major earthquake.", which is one of the things that the scientists are being accused of _not_ doing. The simple fact that they didn't remind people of what was already public knowledge at that particular press conference seems to be enough in Italy to prosecute the people who were there and even the ones who were not there.

I would also like to point out that the "no danger" statement was originally in Italian. The translation into English doesn't necessarily carry over every connotation or nuance of the words actually used. The meaning could have been subtly closer to the "no new danger" version which would have been perfectly accurate. Even if the connotation is exactly the same, it's still close enough that it hardly seems to need correction given the context. In l'Aquila, people are trusting their lives to fate by being inside one of those earthquake-unsafe buildings. A quake could come along at any moment and collapse the building, killing everyone inside. That was true on the day of the press conference, on the night of the quake, two months before the quake, two years before the quake and even today. In that context, which everyone should have already known, the "no danger" statement was accurate to the limits of human knowledge even given the fact that a large earthquake occurred and killed people.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[tragedy]

Actually it's quite a lot like predicting sports outcomes (at least among teams in the same league, clearly it's a lot easier to predict the outcome of a professional team of adults versus a primary school team) in that you really can't. All you can do is identify statistical trends.

Earthquakes are common in that area. The people have historically altered their behaviour based on the threat of imminent quakes, such as by sleeping in cars. There had been various mild tremors suggesting that a large quake was imminent. The seismologists met, and a spokesperson announced that they had concluded that the mild tremors were actually an indication that a large quake was not going to happen. As a direct result of this statement, people stopped their existing preparations for the quake, and resumed normal activities. Then the quake happened.

Statistically speaking, the people would have been just as safe sleeping in their cars on random nights rather than basing it recent low level tremors. They'd been having about three tremors a day for months. The lesser tremors did not suggest that a large quake was imminent. Typically, such clusters of tremors occur for a while then stop with no major quake. The statement about mild tremors relieving siesmic stress and making future quakes more likely is an old assumption about earthquakes that is actually true in certain circumstances, but not all circumstances, and it seems that the spokesman, who wasn't a seismologist, had heard it in the past, but did not hear it from the seismologists at the meeting that occurred before the press conference. Only one seismologist actually attended the press conference and was not the spokesperson. It was already firmly established that many buildings in l'Aquila were deathtraps so the "no danger" statement needed to be taken with a big grain of salt. I think it would have been better if a seismologist had spoken and taken twenty minutes to actually explain the risk factors. People would have had no idea what the seismologist was talking about, but maybe they wouldn't all be on trial now. No, they'd still be on trial for not clearly communicating in plain language since this isn't a real trial, it's a human sacrifice to a force of nature.

The question I have for you is if you do or do not think that the scientists should be tried for not being able to see the future. You say that the scientists could be at fault for "arriving at such a bad conclusion". It was not a bad conclusion, however. Only hindsight makes it a bad conclusion. The correct conclusion based on existing knowledge was that the danger wasn't statistically significantly different than it always was. Living in those buildings in an earthquake zone represented a statistically significant risk of dying in an earthquake someday. Not going into the house reduced that risk, obviously, but predicting _when_ not to go inside was pretty much impossible. I would say though, that if these people are convicted for this, the best course of action is to evict everyone from every unsafe home in l'Aquila, raze most of them and save some as historic sites to be viewed from the outside, and build new buildings to code for an earthquake zone.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[spidercoz]

Non sequitur. These seismologists didn't cause the earthquake and they weren't in it for the money.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[spidercoz]

What? Personal accountability means you are responsible for yourself, no one else is.

Re:Scientists Charged For Not Being Psychic

[Coren22]

Fortunately for Giacchino Giuliani, he is a lab assistant, not a scientist, or else he would be the one on trial. He was "crying wolf" for 6 months before the "big one" hit, based on observations of Radon levels which have never been proved either way in earthquake prediction. The guy caused the politicians and actual scientists to make a statement to calm the populous from this idiot.

Sounds Like Infighting

[eldavojohn]

The problem is in part a scientific one, Mualchin said. The Italian scientists based their analysis on the frequency of earthquakes in the area. This is known as the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA), a method that is state of the art in many countries, but that, in Mualchin’s view, systematically underestimates seismic hazard because it does not consider extreme and rare events.

"Frequency is not important, what really matters is the largest earthquake we can expect, the strongest one that has happened in the past. Risk prevention should be based on that," he said. This is the philosophy behind deterministic seismic-hazard analysis, a method that Mualchin says has been mostly abandoned by the scientific community, to the point that younger seismologists do not even learn about it.

So they were using what is commonly considered a "state of the art" model? I'm guessing the prosecutors happened to find a guy in the United States that apparently even admits to adhering to models that are less commonly accepted than the model that the scientists used. I wonder if he's got an ax to grind now that his preferred model is no longer taught? I don't know anything about these two models but this sounds like infighting and I'm sure it's really easy for Mualchin to step in after the fact and show that his "abandoned" model would have worked better in this particular case. Any seismologists here that can speak to the current research in earthquake prediction and the actual effectiveness of these two models?

I sure am glad I'm not a seismologist, this would angry up my blood.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[LilGuy]

I don't know for sure, but from my listening to NPR and alternative radio seismology and hurricane prediction models are a crapshoot. They're actually worse than chance would give in the same circumstances.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[Hentes]

They were using a probabilistic model yet they claimed that there is absolutely no chance of a major quake. In other words, they were lying.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[repapetilto]

Ah, the good old fat tail risks rears its ugly head. I bet they assumed normal distribution as well.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[Anonymous Coward]

scientific community ... adhering to models ... preferred model ... these two models

All this talk of models. I got lost for a minute and had to remind myself that this is about geology and not climate ... which is settled science.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[canajin56]

According to TFA, the scientists (in their defense) claim to have told the official that there was no increased or decreased risk because they cannot make a definite prediction. The official is the one who turned that into "no risk at all because little quakes release energy and prevent big ones, drink some wine and relax!" Maybe they're lying now to cover their asses. But the big news in TFA is that this official and his boss arranged this press conference to "reassure the public there is no risk" before they even consulted the accused scientists, so I'd tend to believe the scientists that this official twisted their words or outright lied.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, just take 1/p instead of p, to get a better than chance prediction. :)

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[treeves]

1/p? You mean 1-p?
I don't think you're going to impress anyone with your prediction that there is a 2000% chance of a major earthquake in the next five years.

Re:Sounds Like Infighting

[Attila Dimedici]

That is the important question here. Who was actually responsible for making the statement that there was NO RISK. (Emphasis added because that was the nature of the announcement, and the reason for the prosecution). Of course additional questions are, if the public official was the one making that statement, did they lend their tacit support to that statement? And, what threats to their freedom and livelihood did that public official, either explicitly or implicitly, pose (could he have had them fired/jailed/fined) if they did not go along with his announcement?

Ob. Moe

[Rik Rohl]

Let's burn down the observatory so this can never happen again!

Re:Ob. Moe

[Desler]

Or don't make broad statements that you can't guarantee are correct and when being wrong can cost lives?

Re:Ob. Moe

[Anonymous Coward]

So... dismantle NOAA?

Re:Ob. Moe

[WrongSizeGlass]

Or don't make broad statements that you can't guarantee are correct and when being wrong can cost lives?

There is no way to guarantee that it is safe. Unfortunately the only safe response for the scientists and seismologists would be "Yes, there is always a risk of a deadly earthquake", which would result in no one ever believing them when it was true.

Re:Ob. Moe

[Reverand Dave]

This is kind of appropriate.

Re:Ob. Moe

[LilGuy]

Or don't make broad statements that you can't guarantee are correct and when being wrong can cost lives?

Exactly. I made my own case up above to this effect but I'm not sure it was as clear as what you just said. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2676011&cid=39066671

Re:Ob. Moe

[Rary]

There is no way to guarantee that it is safe.

Then they shouldn't be announcing in a press conference that "there is no danger".

Those were the exact words used.

Re:Ob. Moe

[tragedy]

Which of the following is there "no danger" of happening to me:
1. Direct meteorite strike
2. Fatal walrus attack
3. Simultaneous spontaneous nuclear decay of every atom in my body

Good Job, Italian Government

[tmosley]

Watch now as all your scientists flee to avoid being the next to be targeted for being wrong.

Sure, maybe they should lose their jobs, or government grants even, but PRISON!?

Re:Good Job, Italian Government

[Anonymous Coward]

As in any modern democracy, that is not the job of the Governement. The judiciary is an indipendent power. (As in any modern democracy, that is most of the times theory only. Actual facts may differ.)

Re:Good Job, Italian Government

[tmosley]

The police and prosecutors are part of the executive branch of the government.

Also, I question the premise that any of the modern democracies are actually still "democracies". I might go on to claim that they are actually all democratic fascist regimes, likely soon to be simple fascist regimes. This is a part of that journey. You know, the purge of the intellectuals.

In totally unrelated news...

[RightSaidFred99]

Students pursuing seismology as a profession saw a sharp decline.

Why would anyone pursue a career where it's so easy to make a simple mistake and be liable for penalties like this for something that is out of your control?

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[couchslug]

Never predict and stick to research.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Grishnakh]

I predict all Italian seismology students will now leave the country when seeking jobs in their field. With the EU worker laws, this should actually be pretty easy for them.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[jklovanc]

That is exactly waht engineers do every day. They build things, make mistakes and when nature test the building and it fails when within design parameters the engineer is liable. The issue is the enginner stated the building wiuld not fail under certain conditions and if it does the engineer is liable.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely different. Engineering is a well-known science. The limitations of all the materials involved are clearly quantified, and a competent engineer over-designs somewhat anyway, to account for errors in construction, flaws in the material that somehow make it through inspection, or simple random chance.

Liability in the case of engineering is founded on the notion of negligence. Liability in the case of earthquake prediction has no such foundation: earthquakes really can't be reliably predicted.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, research involves predictions. They're called hypotheses. You need them.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, they won't come to the UK or Germany because we have so few serious earthquakes here. The only place left is Greece.

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Grishnakh]

But that seems like it should make UK or Germany excellent places to go; not a lot of job stress if there's so few earthquakes, right?

What about France? Do they have Earthquakes? Or the Scandinavian countries? Or Switzerland?

Re:In totally unrelated news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, research involves predictions. They're called hypotheses. You need them.

OK, how about this: Don't break your own organization's standard operating procedure for calling press conferences in order to discredit some other person's predictions, when you have no actual hypothesis of your own to defend.

Should've become business analysts

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're only giving opinions."

Nobody has even been tried for involvement in the 2008 crash.

Re:Should've become business analysts

[CanHasDIY]

Nobody has even been tried for involvement in the 2008 crash.

Only because they're still in power.

Think about it; if Hitler had won WWII, would there have been Nuremberg Trials?

Re:Should've become business analysts

[treeves]

Too many people are to blame for that. No way to divvy up the blame and sure all of them. You could start with Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank, but that's just my opinion.

Re:Should've become business analysts

[jimi1x]

Yes, but it would have been Churchill and Stalin on trial.....

What is important to realize here

[I Read Good]

is that saying "We do not have reason to believe that there will be a catastrophic earthquake" or "It is not likely that there will be a catastrophic earthquake" is NOT the same as saying "There is no danger of a catastrophic earthquake".

What happened was the scientists came to the former consensus in the meeting, then the politician interpreted it as the latter, and then the politician relayed his version to the people.

IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.

Re:What is important to realize here

[jklovanc]

What got the scientists in hot water was that, upon hearing the politician's interpretation of their findings, they did not correct him. Had they spoken up the misinformation would have been corrected and the people would not have the false sence of security.

Re:What is important to realize here

[Lehk228]

the largest mistake was made by the scientists for meeting with Italian politicians, Italy is more corrupt than the post soviet states

Re:What is important to realize here

[kencurry]

Not that simple. I believe these guys were politically appointed. Correcting a politician in public (esp. in Italy) would surely mean loosing one's situation.

Re:What is important to realize here

[manaway]

IMHO, blaming the scientists is fucking absurd. I think that of the people indicted in this mess, the only one who is at fault is the politician. The most guilty people in this are the idiots who took action concerning their own safety based on their interpretation of what a politician said and against their better instincts.

Saying the only one at fault is the politician, but the most guilty are the idiot people, doesn't really make sense. And suggesting people should trust their instincts above what they perceived to be a scientist's report is risky territory. Though knowing when to distrust a politician gets easier with age.

To simplify a lot: people act on instincts, experience, news, and many other notions. Profitable news edits quotes from politicians. Politicians edit reports from scientists. Scientists produce reports based on analysis of current and historical data. Scientist's analysis depends on instincts, education, and research news. Data is subject to human and machine interpretation. There are several opportunities for idiocy. Guessing the percentage of responsibility for each of those opportunities is, apparently, the goal of the court case.

Re:What is important to realize here

[jklovanc]

In other words the political appointees feel their jobs are more important than people's lives. It is called doing what is right to protect lives and if a scientist does not have enough backbone to do that they should not be scientists consulting on safety issues.

Re:What is important to realize here

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is the scientists doing exactly that lose their jobs and dissappear.

Re:What is important to realize here

[Attila Dimedici]

And that is what their defense should rely on. If they can make the case that the politicians, whether implicitly or explicitly, threatened either their livelihood or their freedom, or both, then they should be found innocent of the charges.

Re:What is important to realize here

[drissel]

It doesn't seem to occur to my fellow commenters that a prudent scientist could simply refuse to predict the future by being silent. The future is unpredictable. The future is more unpredictable than most people think it is. If you think you or anyone else can predict the future, then the future is much more unpredictable than you think it is.

Re:What is important to realize here

[jklovanc]

Care to cite examples? Perhaps is the scientists were vocal enough to the media it would be the politician losing the job and not the scientist. Perhaps if the scientist came out first with "It appears that the politician misinterpreted out technical talk and got the wrong impression". If at that point the politician threatened their jobs they would follow up with "We have been threatened with firing for telling the truth. It appears that the politician in more concerned with being right than protecting people's lives. Do you really want to be represented by him?" I bet that any reasonable political party would get rid of the politician very quickly. Use the press and the truth to bring idiot politicians to light.

Re:What is important to realize here

[jklovanc]

BS. If the scientists lose their jobs after telling the truth sue the government and bring the truth to light. If a job is more important that your principals then every statement you make is suspect; is it true or what the politicians want me to say? A scientist without principles is just a mouthpiece.

Re:What is important to realize here

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not that I believe they should not suffer penalties, just that in the case of inappropriate pressure on the part of the politicians the charges being brought against them are too severe.

Re:What is important to realize here

[jklovanc]

Actually that is the rub. There is no evidence that the scientists even talked to the politician after he made the inaccurate statement so the politician himself could correct it. There is also no evidence that there was ny pressure on the scientists not to talk. Sure, in most political situation there is some pressure to keep the good image of politicians but no evidence of actual pressure in this case.

It is just as likely that the scientists explained their report to the politician and never listened to how he conveyed the message to the public. They could have been to "busy" with their research to actually follow up and check. That would require interest in news and current events which can be difficult when one lives in an ivory tower.

What charge to you think should have been laid? By the way the penalty in Italy for manslaughter is 3 to 15 years.

In Related News

[Anonymous Coward]

Oncologists are now held liable for 7.6 million deaths in 2008 alone.

Re:In Related News

[Anonymous Coward]

Obstetricians & midwives held liable for the death of 99.99% of the population. Their defence in 80% of the cases: "I died over 30 years ago."

as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Seismologists are just used as scapegoats to distract people from the construction companies that lied bout the quakeproofness of their buildings.

So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[t4ng*]

I can not remember a single earthquake in California, whether it killed people or not, that was predicted by California seismologists. Maybe after the next big quake in CA we can have some Italian scientists testify against the California scientists!

Re:So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[PRMan]

But California scientists always say, "A major earthquake is a definite possibility." Still, I can't believe a Californian would go over to Italy to put people in jail for 12 years over a missed prediction. Is this guy paid? It's hard to come up with any other explanation.

Re:So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[Bobfrankly1]

I can not remember a single earthquake in California, whether it killed people or not, that was predicted by California seismologists. Maybe after the next big quake in CA we can have some Italian scientists testify against the California scientists!

Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?

A panel of seismologists who met just days before the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy are on trial over their reassurances to the public.

Re:So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[WaffleMonster]

Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

Re:So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[Bobfrankly1]

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

I sourced my comments from the links in the summary. I'm not finding that quote in either of the linked articles. I searched a few words from the quote without success. Care to credit your source? Lack of source means lack of context, which allows all sorts of questions to be raised. Lack of source also allows the question: "Is this quote even real?"

Was this statement made before or after the statement of "no danger"?
Is he simply stating that he said this before the statement of "no danger", or was he recorded as saying this?
If his opinion differed, why did he remain silent during the statement of "no danger"?

Quotes are great, but even elementary students are taught to credit their sources.

Re:So can we jail CA seismologists next time?

[Bobfrankly1]

Read, you mean like this quote from one of the accused scientists? "It is unlikely that an earthquake like the one in 1703 could occur in the short term, but the possibility cannot be totally excluded."

Ah, I see you are referencing an article I used in some of my other comments. Your quote was from the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps you neglected to read this tidbit:

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.

The minutes were not even prepared until AFTER the earthquake occurred. Really easy to add quotes to the minutes of a meeting AFTER the shit hits the fan.

Its about competency

[dittbub]

I don't like how people are defending these daft seismologists. Would they be so quick to defend a doctor who misplaced a lung for a liver? but 12 years in prison seems too harsh.

Re:Its about competency

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess a doctor should have a better then 10% chance of being able to do identify a lung or a liver where as a seismologist probably has a lower than 10% chance of accurately predicting an earthquake.

Essentially what you are saying is that weathermen who fail to predict a hail storm that injures someone should go to jail because they are far more likely to be able to predict the weather accurately than a seismologist can predict a quake.

Re:Its about competency

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the idea that you are equating seismologists who study crustal instability with doctors who can actually kill their patient by their direct actions. Your analogy is about as apt as Bush as POTUS.

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

People died because an earthquake occurred. The scientists were not responsible for the earthquake. And their "prediction" was probably just about as good as any available. Now consider this: had the scientists told people that there is always a risk of earthquakes, what preparations would the victims have made that might have saved their lives? I'll tell you: precisely zero. Jail or charges for these guys is ridiculous. Italy is as full of idiots as the US. Who'd a thunk it!

Re:Weird

[Bobfrankly1]

People died because an earthquake occurred. The scientists were not responsible for the earthquake. And their "prediction" was probably just about as good as any available.

Read about their "prediction" from a "Nature" article:

In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L'Aquila was "certainly normal" and posed "no danger", adding that "the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, it's a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy". When prompted by a journalist who said, "So we should have a nice glass of wine," De Bernardinis replied "Absolutely", and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.

The suggestion that repeated tremors were favourable because they 'unload', or discharge, seismic stress and reduce the probability of a major quake seems to be scientifically incorrect.

It's one thing to fail to predict an earthquake. However, they didn't fail to predict an earthquake, to the contrary, they predicted that there was "no danger". Basically, no earthquake.

Now consider this: had the scientists told people that there is always a risk of earthquakes, what preparations would the victims have made that might have saved their lives? I'll tell you: precisely zero.

Wrong again. The same article points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.

Re:Weird

[TapeCutter]

The same article [nature.com] points out the routine the residents in the area had of leaving the homes when a small tremor occurred, and sleeping outside. Those residents, pacified by the "no danger" statement of the panel, ignored the tremors and lost their life.

By that logic, since the resident know for certain that there's always a danger of earthquakes in Italy, the residents should move into their cars permanently.

The moral/legal responsibility in all this hangs on the questions surrounding motives, such as;
Did the scientists conspire to mislead the public to stroke their egos or whatever?
Was it an intellectually honest risk assessment that just happened to be wrong?
Were scientific caveats dropped by the politician, edited by the media, etc? If so, was it a deliberate omission for personal gain or Chinese whisper entropy?
Is there any evidence of incompetence or negligence, ie: failure to adhere to due diligence requirements.

Of course some of the answers may be in your link to what I consider a credible source, but it would be un-slashdotian of me to limit my freedom to speculate by reading it.

Scientists Charged For not being scientific.

[Bobfrankly1]

Those people broke with their regular routine of sleeping outside in their car after multiple small tremors, based on the assurances of the seismologists on trial. Those seismologist called that open session to discredit a laboratory tech who was claiming the likelihood of a larger earthquake. The seismologists basically told the people that there was no danger, go drink some wine. If they hadn't called that meeting and gave that direction, those people wouldn't have broken routine, and many of them would have had a much better chance at survival.

This has been discussed on slashdot before, catch-up on some of the details.

What truly scientific mind would say that that it is safe to ignore the tremors that had been happening in the area? Why didn't they say "we have no conclusive evidence of a forthcoming earthquake, but here are some general safety tips". Most likely, they were more interested in discrediting and shaming the laboratory tech who had been warning of a big earthquake. When those who are entrusted with public safety choose ego over public safety, and it causes changes that lead to death, I agree that they should be held accountable.

Read the Nature article. Get the perspective from both sides.

Re:Scientists Charged For not being scientific.

[tomhath]

From the Nature article:

Its most recent seismic tragedy began in October 2008, when dozens of low-magnitude tremors began to hit the city...these tremors continued intermittently over the first three months of 2009...a resident named Giampaolo Giuliani began to make unofficial earthquake predictions on the basis of measurements of radon gas levels...their use as a reliable short-term predictor of earthquakes has never been scientifically proved or accepted...On 30 March, Giuliani says, national civil-protection officials cited him for procurato allarme — essentially instigating public alarm or panic — and forbade him from making any public pronouncements

Six months of tremors. Some guy running around telling everyone there was about to be a big earthquake. Do they ignore him? Kind of sounds like they went too far in saying there was no risk, but I could understand them trying to calm things down.

Re:Scientists Charged For not being scientific.

[sdguero]

Lost in translation perhaps? I don't speak Italian...

Re:Scientists Charged For not being scientific.

[Anonymous Coward]

But there was a big earthquake. So yes, ignoring him would have been the wise choice. And certainly saying there was not going to be a quake when they really didn't know one way or the other was at the least stupid. Whether it's criminally negligent will be up to a judge or jury to decide.

Re:Scientists Charged For not being scientific.

[ToddInSF]

But, but, but...

They didn't have the option of "ignoring him". People *demanded* assurances, as a result of the hysteria the guy caused, and they got them.

Oh, and a "big earthquake" happening after months of predictions of a "big" one by someone unqualified to make that declaration, is hardly conclusive evidence that his theory was right. Don't pretend this is about science, it isn't, it's about shitty popular Italian politics and their own brand of warped "justice".

Earthquakes don't kill people

[helixcode123]

Things falling on people kill people. From the photos in TFA it looks like the're using unreinforced masonry. This is deadly in earthquake zones, but this situation has more to do with local building codes and enforcement than seismic potential.

In the current state of earthquake prediction, the actual prediction of *when* an earthquake will occur is not all that reliable. However the prediction of how much ground acceleration can be expected from potential seismic activity is reliable and building codes can be created accordingly.

Re:Earthquakes don't kill people

[rahvin112]

not all that reliable = not at all reliable.

It's impossible to predict an earthquake. It's a random event, and science has discovered no indication that any event proceeds an earthquake of a certain magnitude. The closest we can get on a fault is an average return cycle which is absolutely an average and has no guarantee of being even within 2 standard deviations of the average. In volcanic areas it's a bit different in that earthquakes tend to cluster around magma events, BUT again there is no way to predict any of it. The best that can be done again is probabilities that aren't accurate and are frequently exceeded in both time and magnitude.

What's going on in Italy is a witch hunt. People died and they want someone punished so their trying to legally lynch the scientists who study the events. Seismology isn't a prediction science, it's a raw discovery science. I find it scary that they are dragging in the former head CalTrans seismologist, he's not an expert, and he's not at the forefront of the profession. I'll be curious to see if someone files a complaint with the professional engineers board in California for what he did as I personally believe he violated the code of conduct and the legal obligations as a registered engineer in the state of California.

Re:Earthquakes don't kill people

[TapeCutter]

From the photos in TFA it looks like the're using unreinforced masonry. This is deadly in earthquake zones, but this situation has more to do with local building codes and enforcement than seismic potential.

The buildings also look quite old, as in centuries, not decades. It's not like people go and update all the buildings in the country every time the building code changes. It's quite common in Europe to live in a house that was built before the US or Australia were even found by Europeans. My weatherboard home in Australia is about 70yrs old and by our standards that is ancient, but from a European perspective it's practically brand new.

Over time buildings will "evolve", sometimes quite quickly. For example the last Katrina sized cyclone in Queensland did far less wind damage to homes than expected, this was largely because a few years earlier another large cyclone had swept away all the buildings that weren't up to nature's code. The houses that replaced them were rebuilt to a code that says they must be able to withstand 300Km/hr winds, which they did. This Darwinian process has been going on across the tropical zone in Australia since cyclone Tracy flattened Darwin in the 70's. I expect Italy will do like Japan, Australia, etc, and take advantage of this Darwinian processes to reduce the impact of major quakes that everyone agrees WILL happen again. To do otherwise with our current level of understanding of these events would be, at best, irresponsible.

Staying with the evolutionary theme, if you look at old European buildings in general they were built with the simple idea "stronger==better". If you then look at the most common natural disasters in Europe (floods/blizzards), it's not hard to see that they are well adapted to their normal environment but those same adaptations have actually made them more vulnerable to less common natural disasters such as earthquakes. (Think Iron age mud and thatch roundhouse vs Roman stone and tile villa, which one would you rather be living in for most natural disasters that occur in Europe, Japan?)

Re:Earthquakes don't kill people

[Uberbah]

It's quite common in Europe to live in a house that was built before the US or Australia were even found by Europeans.

This. What's that saying - "in America, something 100 years old is old, and in Europe 100 miles is a long way". Something built in 1912 is a new building by European standards.

Re:Earthquakes don't kill people

[dkf]

It's impossible to predict an earthquake. It's a random event, and science has discovered no indication that any event proceeds an earthquake of a certain magnitude.

It depends on what sort of prediction you're looking for. A prediction along the lines of "60% likelihood of an earthquake with magnitude over 5.0 in the next 100 years" is quite possible. It's just not useful to people working out whether to evacuate an area on a particular day, and it doesn't help much at all when local building codes are ignored (or large numbers of older properties are not required to comply).

Two problems

[WaffleMonster]

First problem is suing the weather guy for unnecessarily ruining your plans. Predictions sometimes fail because they are predictions. They are not statements of facts. They are guesses based on best effort analysis of avaliable data. You can make the same case in reverse. The weatherman said it was going to snow yesterday and the day before that and it never did. So today when he said snow again I did not believe him and as a result I did not get up early, got snowed in and lost my job for failing to appear on time. Second problem is allowing the legal system to settle scientific issues. It does not work. Never did never will. What you can get an "expert" to say has no real effect on reality. On the other hand those 5000 scientists signatures should mean something? If these scientists are found guilty then Italy deserves to have no seismologists to ever say anything to the public ever and the public deserves what they get as a result.

Re:Two problems

[0123456]

First problem is suing the weather guy for unnecessarily ruining your plans. Predictions sometimes fail because they are predictions. They are not statements of facts. They are guesses based on best effort analysis of avaliable data.

Speaking of the 'weather guy', there's the infamous case of Michael Fish announcing on British TV that there wasn't going to be a hurricane that night... followed by not-quite hurricane force winds that caused widespread damage and killed a bunch of people. Even though he was technically correct, the damage might not have been so bad if people hadn't been watching him on the TV news and had been prepared for such a storm.

While I agree that jailing these people in this case seems crazy, no-one should be announcing in public that something can't happen when it's purely the output of a poorly understood model.

the real culprits

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy was not able to find any form of God nor Mother Nature so the scientists are the scapegoats. Next time the Italians might do better by just throwing acid in the faces of any scientists to prevent this in the future.

But the government told me...!

[Xandrax]

The most frightening thing about this is the sheeple-ish aspect to it. I live in an earthquake zone and I sure as hell do not count on what the government predicts to determine my actions. It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them. Hope you enjoy drinking your own piss. What does it say about the state of humanity that people working for the government say, "Nothing to see here, move along." and people just abandon any sense of personal responsilbity towards their own safety. I can only hope that governments start telling people to go jump off cliffs so we can weed those people out.

Re:But the government told me...!

[brantondaveperson]

It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them.

I'm with you in general, but this statement does not bear examination. If you have a 'major' disaster then you're damn well going to need the government to come in and take care of you, or you're going to die. Clearly you should stock up food or whatever your particular area might require. But if the shit really hits the fan I don't think expecting some help from the government is all that unreasonable. After all, you've been helping them all this time by being (presumably) a good citizen and (again an assumption) paying your taxes etc.

My Quake Prediction

[mrjah]

Gauntlet Humiliation.

This is not in anyone's best interest

[Anonymous Coward]

What is going to happen as a result of this legal action is that no one will ever agree to say *anything* regarding earthquakes for fear of being prosecuted. They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. What they have just lost is the ability to get any information about potential earthquakes in the future. Yes, predicting earthquakes is not reliable at all with today's technology. However what will happen now is that people will not want to release or discuss any information that could possibly be taken to be related to the occurrence of earthquakes. Even if people do eventually develop technologies that can better predict earthquakes, no one in Italy will ever make a comment regarding earthquakes.

The lawsuit will not bring the people who died back to life, nor will it decrease the likelihood of people dying in future earthquakes. If anything, it will increase the likelihood of people dying in the future because there will be *no* information released to the public that might possibly be taken to be a prediction about a future earthquake.

Psychics charged for not knowing science

[TiggertheMad]

They were idiots at best.

Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Honestly, knowing what modern science knows about earthquakes, if a seismologist makes any sort of clam about future earthquakes, why would you believe him?

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[crutchy]

easy... the fool who follows, but a fool ignoring a seismologist with regard to earthquakes is like ignoring a fireman in case of fire, or an aeronautical engineer in cases of airline safety, or a doctor with regards to health concerns. qualifications carry certain ethical responsibilities. if you are in a position of trust, it is your responsibility not to abuse that trust, but everyone makes the odd mistake, and that's why professional indemnity insurance was invented.

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[TiggertheMad]

You didn't answer my question. If a seismologist makes any sort of clam about future earthquakes, why would you believe him?

When has a seismologist EVER been able to accurately predict a earthquake of any real magnitude?

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[crutchy]

your question is rhetorical, obviously. i simply ignored it.

let me ask you a question.

if you are in an area experiencing earth tremors, and a seismologist tells you things are ok, do you believe him?

maybe you wouldn't, so you evacuate. if nothing happens for a while, do you come back? do you stay away for ever? if you come back, how many times do you run away and come back after every tremor? are you beginning to get my drift yet?

people turn to seismologists because they are the experts in that field. they may not be able to predict earthquakes, but most people would trust them if they said that things were ok. if you're a paranoid douchebag you would run away, but maybe while you're gone your house may be ransacked and all your belongings stolen.

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[mooingyak]

If a seismologist makes any sort of clam

I was going to let it go, but since you did it twice,,,, make sure the clam is thoroughly cooked?

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[TiggertheMad]

if you are in an area experiencing earth tremors, and a seismologist tells you things are ok, do you believe him?

Nope, and neither should you. I hope you understand enough about the science that they engaging in to know they are just basically guessing the same as you are. They can discuss theories about tectonics and other interesting topics, but nothing they have discovered in their pursuit of knowledge has granted them any insight into what is going to happen in 5 minutes or 5 years.

Re:Psychics charged for not knowing science

[crutchy]

they are just basically guessing the same as you are

but theirs is a more educated guess than mine, and if someone else knows more about something then I do, I would trust the expert's guess more so than my own, and most other people would too. that's the whole point of having experts.

...when you think you may be sick, do you keep seeing different doctors till you come across one that agrees with your diagnosis?

LOL? Let me settle that real quick.

[Johann Lau]

The next Quake will have lots of brown colors, there will be lots of beasts with hooves and horns, as well as flying skulls, pentagrams and lava from the hell dimension/solar system. The final boss will be kinda gross and go "RARGBLARGBLARG" all the time. You're welcome!