Failure to forecast morphs to criminal investigation

From an AGU press release, potential charges for failure to forecast an earthquake. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.

Aerial view of l'Aquila in Italy - Image: Times of Malta

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

107 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zeke the Sneak
September 6, 2010 9:20 am

Enneagram says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:50 am
I don’t think you send the elders, like me , …

Time is the essential ingredient to all the finest things I know.

Enneagram
September 6, 2010 9:40 am

Zeke the Sneak says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:20 am
One thing is for real: It is said that “The Devil knows more because of being older than for being a Devil” 🙂
As for “time” it is subjective, though the shorter the wave length the sooner it goes…..TEMPO, so the closer to the source the higher the pitch. (Perhaps this why, when old, ears whistles..:-) )

Enneagram
September 6, 2010 9:47 am

In old cultures, like the italian, usually survive odl customs, like the “tarantella” or the praying to the moon: “luna, luna, porta fortuna”. To seriously understand those italian judges, we must think they were not judging scientists but AUGURERS (those who forecasted using the flying of birds).

Zeke the Sneak
September 6, 2010 10:20 am

Enneagram says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:40 am
One thing is for real: It is said that “The Devil knows more because of being older than for being a Devil” 🙂
That is why he is always advising, “You’ve got to do something – quick!”
He elegantly calls it these days his Precautionary Principle 🙂

Patrick Davis
September 6, 2010 9:21 pm

“Kevin Kilty says:
September 5, 2010 at 9:43 am”
I don’t know of any Banking system that is considered “modern” that predates that which the Bank of England created. The problem with this system is that it does not create any wealth at all. In fact, this system and it’s failings, was a factor in what became WWII. All is well when the sprial is upwards however, we are all too aware of what happens when the reverse happens.

September 7, 2010 8:36 am

I’m neither a scientist nor a mathemetician, but reading the comments above, I can tell that some definitions are in order:
* Possible–This is something that CAN HAPPEN.
* Probable–This is something that is LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
The scientists said what anyone else should have said. It is possible for there to be a major quake in a certain area during a certain time period, but based on current knowledge, there is not much chance of accurately predicting it.
There. Does that make it clearer?

PhilJourdan
September 8, 2010 11:51 am

I wonder who gets sued for not predicting armegeddon?

1 3 4 5
Verified by MonsterInsights