Slashdot Mirror
Manslaughter Conviction Overturned For Scientists Who Didn't Predict Earthquake
Jason Koebler writes: Geologists who didn't warn a town about an impending earthquake are not murderers, an Italian appeals court ruled today. A 2012 decision that rocked the scientific world has been overturned, according to Italy's Repubblica newspapers and confirmed by other Italian outlets. In that decision, six prominent geologists and one government worker were convicted of manslaughter for failing to notify the town of L'Aquila of a 2009 earthquake that killed at least 309 people. The scientists were originally sentenced to six years in prison and were to pay more than $10 million in damages.
Try them again, I say! That'll show 'em. They'll think twice before becoming scientists in Italy.
Will you ever get it right? Will you ever get the fucking title right?
They did not fail to predict.
They said we (yes, i was there at the time) could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm.
Let's hope they also overturn the Amanda Knox conviction. The evidence against her is rather weak. It appears she did lie, but perhaps because she was scared and was trying not to get framed by spinning her story. Reduce her sentence to lying in court, which she already spent the time for, anyhow.
Table-ized A.I.
Except for the fact that other "experts" were kooks who weren't able to predict anything.
As a scientist, I can breathe a sigh of relief: I can finally go back to not double-chorking my results!
So, basically, we should criminally prosecute anyone whose views disagree with your political biases?
That is ultimately the problem. Once things get to the point where the courts are involved, much like scientific debates depicted on television, they are reduced to 1 person for, and 1 person against, and are largely not representative of the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. The format combined with subject matter that most people choose not to attempt to understand creates the illusion that there is still cause for discussion on the matter and that one crackpot saying "I can predict big earthquakes, and so can you! Look at this data, there was all of these events going on for months, so why wouldn't they think that there was something going on in a seismically active region?" versus the 99 others saying "Here are 500 other instances where in this very city, these same conditions were present and absolutely nothing happened. If we alerted everyone, everywhere every time that there was a minor event based off of the potential that something *could* happen, there would be no credibility when at some point in the future we have adequate technology and understanding to predict these events!" And that is ultimately the problem, out of an emphasis of "fairness", both sides are given equal time and their information presented is gauged based off of which is more plausible for a layman to understand and are most compatible with their social biases and prejudices. It ceases to be about which side is right but rather which side is more likable and most compatible with the political and social viewpoints of the community.
Thirty four characters live here.
Looking for a scapegoat is never out of style. Also look how politicians from Maine handled Ebola quarantine. Scientifically she was Ebola free however it was a better political move to act as if there was danger, just in case.
We like it that way here.
Who in their right mind would judge them for a natural occurrence... It might be their job, but they aren't Gods either.
It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.
The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.
The main problem was that they denied the risk of an earthquake.
The problem started when a hobby earthquake guy watched measurements and noticed increased activity. He then wrote online about increased stress and that a big earthquake was imminent. People panicked and started fleeing the city. The later convicted people then showed up in public as national experts to tell people that there would not be an earthquake, people should return home and resume normal life. The earthquake then hit less than a week.after that.
The problem here is that it is easy to look back and say that the first guy was right. However the background earthquake noise is far from constant and it is rather common to see spikes of activity. Most of the time those spikes will stop and nothing happens and while they do indicate that the risk of an earthquake has increased, the probability still indicates that it will not happen. It is kind of like the statement that the risk of being hit by fireworks is higher at new years eve than it is on any other day. While the statement is true, the majority of people still avoids being hit and as such is almost useless to tell if a specific person will be hit.
The reason for the conviction is not that they failed to predict the earthquake. The problem was that they stated that they were 100% sure it wouldn't happen. If they had said that the risk had increased from 1% to 4% (or whatever the numbers were) and used that to state that it was really unlikely, then they would likely not have been convicted in the first place.
And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right. What's your point? Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it? The whole episode is total nonsense.
How would this be different from current law in most, if not all, nations?
It actually is exceedingly stupid, not for the specific situation itself, but for the greater ramifications. It is better to even have mediocre geologists looking at the possibility of earthquakes than to not have any at all. With manslaughter convictions like the one in question, no sane geologist will work on earthquake predictions anymore an _that_ is what would result in massively more casualties and what makes this verdict so stupid.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In the phone conversation between Bertolaso (head of the italian "FEMA") and Daniela Stasi (councilor of the Abbruzo regional government) of 3.30.2009 recorded by the investigators: "... we have decided to hold a meeting there in L'Aquila... in order to shut up any idiot, appease... I send them to L'Aquila, it's a media stunt... these guys who are the maximum authorities in earthquakes will say: business as usual, these phenomena happen, better to have one hundred tremors at Richert scale 4 that nothing, because one hundred quakes remove energy, and there will never be a big one, the one that hurts, you understand !?..."
Nobody ever accused these scientists of having failed to do the rain dance, but of having prostituted themselves.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Nope, that wasn't the problem. The issue was that a bunch of corrupt politicos were fed up of the clamor that a "quack" (Giampaolo Gioacchino Giuliani) was making about his Radon monitoring stations and the coming of a big quake, so they summoned these scientists and organized a media blitz to discredit and call out the guy.
People heaved a sigh of relief, stopped sleeping in their cars and went back to their homes. Many died under the rubble a couple days later.
Sane geologists still have no good reason to remain in Italy, unless you're ok to be commanded and manipulated by filthy politicos.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
don't let us stop you experimenting on yourself..
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
What pop stars were they pretending to be instead of doing their jobs?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
The scientists did not stand accused of failing to warn against an earthquake. Not at all. Legend.
They were accused to have encouraged the town of Aquila to disregard threatening tremors and stay safely at home.
The town followed 'their' recommendation against the century old habits in an earthquake-prone region to run out and wait in the open air. Result was more then 300 deads.
The appeal court has decided that the fatal recommendations did not come from the scientists but from the inept, corrupt, opportunistic bureaucracy. Doubts about this version linger on.
I take offense... being Italian.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Actually the summary is an invention. They were accused of stating that there was no possibility of harm, that people should have remained at home. I.e.: they released false and fatally flawed recommendations for political reasons. It was well known that the region was at risk due to historical evidence.
It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.
The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.
Just wait a while.
They'll try them again three more times, twice in absentia, and once including the maids and the guys that fixed their cars.
Italian "courts" are a laughing stock, only useful for being mocked, nothing more than third world idiots now.
As a speaker of the English language, I also take offence.
In addition, there's strong evidence that political pressure made them lie and say there would be no large earthquake to avoid a panic. So they're definitely guilty, it's just that the government was the one who told them to lie and then dropped the hammer on them.
And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right.
Wrong.
Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it?
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake. You may now try again. Read around this thread for citations, there are several links.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Versus Three Thousand Years Ago.
We all know would have happened to false prophets!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
i seem to remember them saying there was no raised probability and based on the scientific consensus on the matter there was no raised probability. There was a single guy that was saying that there was an increased probability of quakes from prior signs. In other words, 99/100 geologist you asked would have said the same thing as the convicted.
The problem was that the scientists said that a quake was "unlikely" and the Governmental liaison with the public took that to mean that everything was fine so he said there was "no danger" in a press conference. The quake was unlikely, and there was no more danger than normal but that didn't mean "no danger" at all.
I remember feeling sad for italy when these guys were convicted.
The conviction can not be any stupider as it was the stupidest case ever brought to trail - stupid even for Italy's notoriously fickle justice system.
NO ONE CAN PREDICT EARTHQUAKES.
They said, rightly,that the recent "swarm" of small quakes did not increase the risk of a big quake. They never said there was no risk. The area has a a higher than normal risk for quakes which was never denied. Government officials did want to shut up a technician that was predicting a big quake due to radon reading - a method that has been discredited - to prevent unnecessary alarm. If you live in an earthquake zone you have to accept there is going to be a big one eventually, and you have to accept to one can predict when.
The conviction was a travesty. You might as well convict them of not predicting every heart attack that was going to occur in the city for the next year, even with everyone's medical records.
They caused no harm. An unpredictable natural event did that no one could predict. "Swarms" of smaller quakes happens in that area regularly and the last big quake was in 1706.
It is a very well established legal principal that you don't hold people responsible for things they have NO control over!
Anarchists never rule
apparently he's predicted a lot of other earthquakes before. and this is the first one that actually came to pass.
What makes you think it's over? Italy has no concept of "double jeopardy" and someone found not guilty may be tried again and later found guilty. Have you never heard of Amanda Knox?
Learn to love Alaska
You may now try again.
Thank you.
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true? We know an earthquake occurred, but this is far from a statement about the 'likelihood' of that earthquake, isn't it? Isn't it the case that most large earthquakes aren't preceded by anything out of the ordinary? And that most sequences of small earthquakes do not culminate in a large event - except insofar as that large event occurs eventually?
The earthquake in NZ that killed 185 people in February of 2011 was a large aftershock - there is no dispute that a large event will always cause a large number of subsequent events of varying size - of another large earthquake in September of the previous year. It could be argued that the central city should have been evacuated and not re-entered until all the unsafe buildings within the area had been strengthened - but no-one was bonkers enough to suggest that the aftershock should have been 'predicted', even though at that time the aftershocks were occurring almost every day.
Now, why is this? And what would prediction have meant in any case? There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives. As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true?
Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes. As a matter of fact, there have been families who were going to leave l'Aquila as a precaution, and changed their minds after hearing an appeal to keep calm and stay home, on the radio. That was narrated by survivors. There had been some political pressure, aimed at keeping order, to have those scientists sign that appeal. No illicit deals were proved, and even if there had been any, they can be considered part of Berlusconi's style of administration. Governors command, subjects obey.
There is no reason to believe that a prediction, which will never be more than a general notion of increased likelihood over an indeterminate period of time anyway, could possibly save lives.
It is not the usual kind of "predictions" (or opinions), which are common in such cases, but rather the propensity to give false, unjustifiable predictions in order to keep people calm. The latter sounds like "we don't care if you die or not, but please do it silently."
As is often said, earthquakes do not kill people, unsafe buildings kill people. The buildings that collapsed and killed in Italy were unsafe obviously, and many of those that collapsed were extremely old. Where is the court case about the council (or whoever it ought to be) failing to earthquake strengthen a town full of mediaeval buildings?
Sure.
Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes
No. There is no reason to believe that smaller shakes are warnings. None whatsoever. That there was a subsequent deadly earthquake is a terrible tragedy, but it does not change the fact that small shakes are not a predictor of large earthquakes.
If those families had left l'Aquila, then one presumes that they would have returned at some point. If a large earthquake had not occurred by that point, but did shortly thereafter, would the scientists still be at fault?
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.
I think we all agree that predicting earthquakes (or weather, or stock exchange, for that matter) is not an exact science.
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.
An expert's prediction —especially if officially appointed— should be solely based on her or his knowledge and beliefs, free from external pressure, lobbying, or prejudice. Scientists who are in conflict of interest because their opinions are too intertwined with their wishes should either stay silent or explain their position clearly. Legally, appointed experts who (ab)use their role for channeling spurious advices should be sentenced. IANAL, but it seems to me that would have been straightforward if the subject had been of financial rather than geological flavor, correct?