From an AGU press release, potential charges for failure to forecast an earthquake. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.
Scientists May Face Manslaughter Charges After Earthquake
22 June 2010
AGU Science Policy Alert 10-18
Seven Italian scientists and government officials are under investigation on charges of manslaughter for failure to warn the city of L’Aquila, Italy, before an earthquake hit last year, killing hundreds. The scientists and officials under investigation, who are employees of the National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) and the Civil Protection Department, took part in a meeting of the Major Risks Committee on 31 March 2009. At the meeting, the committee told L’Aquila city officials that “just because a small series of quakes has been observed [in L’Aquila] there is no reason to suggest that the sequence of low-magnitude tremors are a precursor to a major event,” which was deemed “improbable, although not impossible.” However, on 6 April 2009, the city was struck by a Mw 6.3 earthquake that killed 308 people.
The criminal charges against these scientists and officials are unfounded. Despite decades of scientific research in Italy and in the rest of the world, it is not yet possible to accurately and consistently predict the timing, location, and magnitude of earthquakes before they occur. It is thus incorrect to assume that the L’Aquila earthquake should have been predicted. The charges may also harm international efforts to understand natural disasters and mitigate associated risk, because risk of litigation will discourage scientists and officials from advising their government or even working in the field of seismology and seismic risk assessment.
Science is making critical contributions to the understanding and mitigation of earthquake hazards in Italy and the world. Examples include providing tools such as seismic risk maps to determine areas of greatest vulnerability, improving seismic wave analysis so that we can better understand how the Earth moves during an earthquake, and increasing our capabilities for seismic monitoring and for providing rapid information on earthquake location and severity for early warning systems and first responders.
It is in the best interest of all countries to reduce earthquake vulnerability through awareness, preparation, and mitigation. Local government officials should work with scientists and engineers to prepare for seismic hazards in that region. To truly mitigate earthquake risk, governments must utilize the long-term hazard assessment, post-earthquake Shake Maps, and other tools created by seismologists to educate residents and inform sound infrastructure policy. Communities can increase their earthquake preparedness through implementation of building codes based on these long-term hazard assessments, retrofitting older buildings, improving emergency response, and increasing public awareness of the hazard and individual responsibility during and after these tragic events.
In support of the Italian scientists and officials, the INGV has written an open letter to the President of the Republic of Italy. The letter is open for public signatures and, as of 21 June 2010, has 5,028 signatories from around the world, many of whom are geoscientists. Please sign the letter and pass this information on to your colleagues if you support these seven scientists and officials and their right to conduct best scientific practices without risk of persecution.
Update 28 June: The letter has been closed for signatures with 5,165 signatories.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How could a rational person blame them for this?
Given what we saw of Italian justice in the Amanda Knox trial, 5165 signatures may not be enough….
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/europe/06perugia.html
This is what happens when a few scientists (a couple of names come to mind) put themselves on the pedestal as gods.
The public comes to believe that scientists have special powers. Perhaps X-Ray vision, so that they can see down inside the earth.
That’s ridiculous.I guess scientists have fostered the impression that they know it all,but it’s still ridiculous that you think you could evacuate a city of millions(not talking Italy in particular)on a guess.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought tremors are felt quite often in areas prone to earthquakes?
If I were a citizen of a country that mandated you go public with a best guess of essentially unpredictable events like earth quakes, tornadoes, floods, etc., or face legal punishment, I’d quickly find another line of work. This is probably a text book example of not exploring unintended consequences.
How can you predict the breaking point of that which is buried under miles of earth, and that has never seen the light of day?
Better hurry up and invent nanoprobes that can crawl into faults.
It is an old story. Nature has a report in detail:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html
The blame on those seismologists is not because that they were unable to predict the earthquake, but because that some of them might ruled out the earthquake probability in a press conference before the quake.
Noelene: September 4, 2010 at 8:44 pm
That’s ridiculous.I guess scientists have fostered the impression that they know it all,but it’s still ridiculous that you think you could evacuate a city of millions(not talking Italy in particular)on a guess.
It’s also ridiculous to think that someone would be so frightened of “scientific” pronouncements about the catastrophic effects of global warming that they’d kill themselves. But people have done just that.
WTF??
That’s like the girl who sued McDonalds saying they made her fat.
Unbelievable!
I’m signing the letter, for what my signature is worth.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
There is a lot more about this story then mentioned above. I included it are as part of an April 2nd. essay called “What Is The Cause of It” a part of which follows:
“Sometimes we look at our models and at our data and even if the fit is not perfect or our understanding incomplete, seeing the moral and ethical need to act. Because we study rocks does not mean we have no social conscious or responsibility. This very thing happened to a technician in Italy, not all that long ago. Gioacchino Giuliani had noticed a increase in radon gas seeping from a known active fault zone. He believed that this increase signaled eminent movement on the fault and therefore an earthquake. He thought he knew when this would happen and attempted to warn the citizens, living in the zone or area of danger. His prediction was movement correct, his estimation of the time was not. Many took him to task for having warned of immanent danger without having sufficient skills to accurately predict the time. If he had been more or less correct, say ±6 hours he would have been a hero. He was out by about 6 days. On the human scale, a long time. On the geological scale less then an instant.
What has clearly been demonstrated in this situation was: for this fault, in this place, the model seems to work, at least this time. Ignazio Guerra of the University of Calabria said that it is impossible to rely on that technique to predict an earthquake: “There have been earthquakes without the emission of radon gas just as there have been emissions of radon gas without earthquakes. Thus this method is far from perfect.”
This also demonstrates the moral and ethical dilemma of the technician. He honestly believed the conclusions drawn from his data and how that data fit into his model. He developed a hypothesis and on the face, it has not been falsified. It has not been proven but remember, we don’t prove things we falsify them. This is not a new technique and has not been shown to have great predictive value on a reliable basis, as yet.
As to the moral and ethical responsibility, it is clear this scientist did what he believed he must do, the well-being of his neighbors hung in the balance. Time was of the essence here, in my view he had no choice but to act. We may and the Italian authorities did, not approve of that action, i.e. the way he did it. In the social/political dynamic, just like the geophysical dynamic of the fault, we do not know all the elements sufficiently well to make judgments, that will completely satisfy everyone. To some extent it is a credibility thing. If the technique only works half the time, then we may as well roll dice or cut cards. Here Credibility was tied to expectations. Society needs to temper its desires to the probability of model accuracy. Since scientists can not depend on others to be honest about our accuracy and abilities, we ourselves must. In music he who pays may call the tune but in science the results must be independent.”
Ah, Greece has a sad story of earthquakes and of predictions for earthquakes.
in 1980 there were a 6.9 and a 6.5 richter earthquake 70km from Athens that impacted the metropolis and for about a month the whole city was shaking with small tremors like a tree in the wind.
Now we are descendants from people who jumped out of stone and wood buildings before they collapsed, our reflexes are strong, so most of the Athens population slept for a month in their cars, or set up tents in lawns etc.
This turned every physicist into a seismologist or seismic explorer. Unfortunately, an assistant professor at the university whose specialty was solid states and particularly piezoelectris, latched on to the currents coming out from faults and decided that they could used them in a triangulation method to find when an earthquake happens.
They have peer reviewed papers and all. They were supported politically.
Their predictions range in hundred kilometers and the magnitude +/- 1 richter, useless in a country that has a size 4 somewhere every week.
The end result is that what the main line seismologists were saying was right, you cannot predict earthquakes with a precision in time and space and magnitude to be of any use for protecting the population. The only prevention is better building codes which fortunately were undertaken and buildings after 1980 are much more robust ( that word 🙂 )
Shamans & Witchdoctors beware…
Now that the Church of Algorean has been maligned all the soothsayers shall be torn asunder.
Seriously, what the he!! Is wrong with the world?
Fools & their ways are soon parted…
The Queen of Hearts is alive and reigning in Italy — “Off with their heads!”
Or is that Stalin shipping off out of favor scientists to the gulag?
Amazing as to how little press there has been on this one. Maybe because we just take for granted the Kiwis living in paradise but geez….somebody needs to give them some love.
Serious situation down there.
Major winter cyclone bearing down upon the city with possible hurricane force gusts after a devastating earthquake.
OK….might be worthy of a little media coverage please…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nzealandquake
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Perish the thought that scientists are ever held accountable for their predictions. Or their failure to take account of uncertainty. I wouldn’t be too quick to exhonorate these guys until I’ve seen what they actually said. Errors in good faith are one thing, but sloppy science and gung ho adverturism is another thing altogether.
The really silly thing is that no-one has ever died from an earthquake – you die from things falling on you.
If you are outdoors, and away from falling objects, then just enjoy the ride like human-kind has done for aeons.
I blame global warming……
Worthlesspedia says of l’Aquila, “Villages in the valley along Strada Statale 17 just outside l’Aquila suffered the greatest damage while medieval mountain hill towns lying high above the valley suffered little damage.” So, the culprit appears to be (as is the case for most earthquake related deaths) the local ground conditions. Ground failure (probably liquefaction) caused by strong ground shaking during the earthquake resulted in catastrophic collapse of some of the structures.
If the ‘prosecuters’ need someone to blame, why don’t they go after the local city officials. The local officials knew about the earthquake swarm and the ‘not impossible’ prediction from the national government scientists. They were also undoubtedly familiar with the quality of the structures and the general nature of the ground conditions in their “medieval city”. I don’t know about the building codes or code enforcement in Italy, but the local officials would be the ones with the authority to order and administer any evacuations. That said, I think it is ridiculous to try to blame anyone, and it would be ‘unprecedented’ (outside of a couple instances in China) for any evacuations to be ordered on the basis of an earthquake prediction. However, if it happened in this country, plaintiff lawyers would sue any party related to the construction/development of the collapsed structures that had liability insurance.
Christchurch, NZ, has just been hit by a 7.1 earthquake without a single death – some good fortune but also good management of building construction and remedial work.
You cannot predict when an earthquake will happen but you can predict places it is likely to happen and you can build structures that will avoid killing people.
Sounds like the wrong people are in the dock in Italy.
I am all for holding public servants and people in position of influence (such as Professor of respected Universities, or for examples head of medical practices at a large hospital) responsible for their actions (or non actions) and to be charged with criminal negligence.
I recall (some time ago) two engineers in Italy were jailed due to the failure of a dam they had (poorly) designed.
In professions these days few seem to apply or hold to ethical standards. The whole of so-called climate science is riddled with people who put their self aggrandizement before the ethical requirements of a) competence b) respect for other professionals (competent persons who may have contrary views c) and not to cause harm to others (through taxes, excessive costing, planning or carrying out things that do not work etc etc)
People employed to give advice about earthquakes, volcanoes, and other seismic events should be competent, give considered and timely advice. The same thing applies to Meteorologists who give warnings about Hurricanes and the mess about air travel in Europe after the Iceland volcanic eruption.
My feeling is that Obama has a lot to answer for by not overriding laws which hampered the oil spill clean up. I do not know if someone can sue him (and his senior public servants) for not doing their job in an emergency.
I am a registered professional engineer and expect to be held accountable for my design and operational decisions.
I believe every other professional needs to similarly accountable. The world will then be a better place.
Confucius say: “Man who lie about presence of wolf quite likely to get bitten in end.”
A) Bureaucrats are trying to cover their butts, and these scientists are convenient scapegoats. This is not fair.
B) There was the series of low-magnitude tremors. “Failure to predict,” as worded, is overboard. But declaring an earthquake “improbable, although not impossible” seems wrong. People were likely lured into a false sense of security, thinking the possibility too remote to worry about. Merely declaring it a possibility and recommending preparedness would have been prudent and advisable. [As far as “the precautionary principle” goes, earthquakes are a known potentially-lethal danger to be wary about, (C)AGW is not.] The declaration made is potentially negligent, investigation into whether it was criminal should not be barred. This is fair.
This is not a new issue. Back in the Reagan years the US geologists professional association asked the government about forecast liabilities.
At that time there were three issues because observations of water injections in Colorado showed they could trigger small earthquakes and thus reduce pressure and prevent a big one. Discussion about a big one in the San Francisco region were peeked partly by a documentary on “the city that waits to die.” They posed three questions, a) If we have information about a potential earthquake and don’t provide a warning are we liable? b) If we trigger a big one while inducing small ones are we liable? c) If we make a prediction and enormous costs are incurred to vacate the city etc and it doesn’t happen are we liable?
I don’t recall that any answers were provided
Climatologists should take note of this. Because the next time that they predict a mild winter and a huge cold wave comes in and kills hundreds, they may see themselves in a trial too. And for the same wrong reasons.
The key thing is: “do not pretend that you know what you have no idea about, and always always admit your ignorance, especially if you are assessing risks”.
The italian scientists had no idea whether an earthquake was comming or not, yet they dared to call that possibility “improbable”.
The US Congress should pass, and Obama must sign, a legislation prohibiting any and all natural disasters. That will solve the problem in the same quick and easy way they solved health care, unemployment and financial crisis problems. Nothing to worry about: yes, we can!
Along the same lines, Grand Ayatollah Hamenei, in his speech given last week, proclaimed that music (all music, the holy man doesn’t split hairs) is against the fundamental principles of the Islamic Revolution. Young men and women, says the Interpreter of God (that’s what “Ayatollah” means), should devote themselves to prayer, learning the science (!) and sports. Great God!
How can anyone forecast an earthquake with sufficient accuracy to prevent accidents ? The only way is to build with earthquakes in mind. Here on Corfu all new buildings are safe to 6.3 tremors, but obviously old structures are prone to damage. “Act of God” is the phrase that comes to mind.