Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Who Failed to Warn of Quake Found Guilty of Manslaughter

An anonymous reader notes that the BBC reports "Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila. A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter. Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes. The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people." The scientists were first charged more than two years ago.

16 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading summary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    They were found guilty not primarily for failing to predict the earthquake, but for releasing a statement saying there was probably not going to be one. They are accused of giving people a false sense of security resulting in them not taking necessary precautions.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Misleading summary by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wondered if there was more to the story than the summary indicates. I find it hard to believe a country like Italy would convict based on not having the ability to predict an earthquake.

      I did some reading, and the charges have more to do with creating a perception that the earthquake risk was remote and being negligent in their duty to keep the people educated about earthquake preparation and vigilance.

      Whether you agree that the scientist were negligent or not, the article title and summary are misleading and flamebait.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Ars Technica: In the week before the earthquake struck, the group told the public that the high incidence of smaller earthquakes were not necessarily precursors of a larger quake. They did, however, also mention that earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety.

      That may be what they were found guilty of, but it doesn't sound like it's what they did.

    3. Re:Misleading summary by Thruen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Going by the stories from back when the quake happened, the summary is more accurate than you think. What they said was that a series of tremors didn't mean there's an earthquake coming, not that there isn't going to be an earthquake. It may not sound like the biggest difference, but it really is. If earthquakes were easy to predict, I'd hesitate to defend them, but they aren't. The people who've decided they should've known are people who are not the least bit qualified to make that call, which is why geologists were hired in the first place.

    4. Re:Misleading summary by tomhath · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are close to what actually happened. An amateur geologist decided for reasons of his own that an earthquake was imminent and had been spreading panic for several months before the quake. These geologists tried to calm people's fears by stating (correctly) that there was no scientific evidence that an earthquake was about to strike.

      I assume there have been many such predictions over the years and authorities have responded by assuring people that there was no reason to panic. As luck would have it, this time there was an earthquake that killed many people (actually not all that uncommon where it happened, so it wasn't pure luck that the guy predicted it). So now whenever anyone cries "wolf" in Italy everyone needs to take it seriously.

    5. Re:Misleading summary by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 5, Informative

      that radio dude

      Paul Harvey

    6. Re:Misleading summary by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly, this is the same country where the prosecutors in the Knox trial had her motives ranging from satanic orgy, to sex games gone wrong, to drug money homicide, to jealousy, to Knox just being a sociopath, and reefer madness. Basically, NEVER get arrested in Italy.

    7. Re:Misleading summary by Nyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      The lesson is to not ever go to italy at all, ever, no matter who you are. They have a judicial system that produces results that are clearly insane.

      Yes, Amanda Knox learned that lesson.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:Misleading summary by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 4, Informative

      They should have just told the truth: That they didn't have enough data to predict anything.

      That is exactly what they did say, but the politicians didn't understand them.

      http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/GdM_english_NOTIZIA_01.php?IDNotizia=340440&IDCategoria=2694

      "There is no reason to suggest that the sequence of low-magnitude tremors are a precursor to a major event," said the committee's deputy chair Franco Barberi, according to minutes of the meeting published by prosecutors.
      INGV President Enzo Boschi said "just because a small series of quakes has been observed" does not point to a large quake, which he described as "improbable, although not impossible".

      It was a politician who proclaimed that there was no danger.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57537303/italian-scientists-get-6-years-for-laquila-earthquake-statements/

      In a post-meeting press conference, however, Department of Civil Protection official Bernardo De Bernardinis, also a defendant, told citizens there was "no danger."

      The failure here was one of communication and conclusions. Politicians want answers and will not tolerate "we don't know". The problem is, science is really short on answers and long on probability. That is doubly so with a science like seismology. Scientists like to be precise about all of the shades of nuance. So when the politicians ask, "will there be an earthquake" and the seismologists say "probably no", all the politicians hear is "no".

  2. Bad Precedent by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

    If falsely re-assuring people that a disaster won't happen is actionable, then a lot of politicians and government employees are in big trouble.
    On top of that, did they establish that the scientists did not believe their own statements?
    Now, at least in Italy, you can expect any expert of any hard (or impossible) to predict field to start spouting worst case scenarios for every question just to avoid liability.

    Real dumb move Italy. Just because you wanted a scapegoat, you've screwed yourself over for real issues.

  3. Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Is it really too hard to include the link to an actual article where this NEWS is being stated?

    Quick google result here

    See? Now you got me karmawhoring!
    *ticks 'Post Anonymously'*

  4. Re:Accountability by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that too many people are giving opinions on subjects that affect other people's lives and have zero accountability. this trial is a precursor to what may eventually become the norm.

    You seem to be conflating science with engineering. Now I have news for you: there's a reason why we have two different words for these things (and no, it's not so that poets can have a richer vocabulary for writing odes).

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. From now on, when asked, Geologists will say..... by kawabago · · Score: 4, Informative

    A large and devastating earthquake is imminent somewhere on earth 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

  6. Italians did not use current methodology by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I heard the Italian Court consultant Thomas Jordan head of the Southern Calfornia Earthquake Center talk on this topic. Look at slides 15 & 16 about the difference between prediction and forecasting. The current methodology is to give a probabalistic forecast, like in weather, and not a yes/no prediction. The Italian scientists did not follow current methodology and gave a less useful prediction. The court convicted these scientists of negligence for not being current enough and might have cost some lives. Nearly the entire seismologic community including Dr. Jordan thinks the court decision was wrong.

  7. Re:Same difference by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is pretty much what they did say. Their conclusion was that the recent small earthquakes did not make it more likely that a larger earthquake was about to happen, however, this is an earthquake prone area, one could happen an any time. Furthermore, they stated that there were a lot of old unsafe buildings in the area that should be evacuated in the case of any earthquake as they do not provide any protection, and replaced as soon as practical.

  8. Buildings Not Up To Code by jdev · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real crooks are the cops and civil defense people

    Corrupt building inspectors were most likely the biggest issue. Newly constructed buildings were not built to code and came crumbling down. Of course, it's a lot harder to go after those guys than just blaming some scientists who were making reasonable predictions based on the available data.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08codes.html