Seismologists Tried for Manslaughter for Not Predicting Earthquake

[Munjibunga]

Italian Police: "Are you a seismologist?"
Seismologist: "Uhhhh, no! I'm a ... uhhhh ... a paleontologist. Yeah, that's right, I'm a paleontologist!"

Is this stupid, or what?

A judge in L’Aquila, Italy has ordered the trial of seven local seismologists charged with manslaughter for interpreting tremors in the town in March 2009 as unlikely to lead to an earthquake.

A 6.3 magnitude temblor struck L’Aquila on April 6, 2009 but 309 residents who believed the wrong assessment of the seismologists and did not evacuate were killed when their homes collapsed.

Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella set the trial of Bernardo De Bernardinis, Enzo Boschi, Giulio Selvaggi, Franco Barberi, Claudio Eva, Mauro Dolce and Gian Michele Calvi on September 20.

De Bernardinis asked colleagues to assess the seismic activities in L’Aquila on March 31, 2009. Later, he announced in a press conference and on TV that the tremors do not pose risk of an earthquake.

Public Prosecutor of L'Aquila Fabio Picuti filed manslaughter charges against the seismologists in June 2010 saying they misinformed the public and indirectly caused the deaths of residents they had reassured.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/artic...#ixzz1NWZcy6cf

[jp58]

I don't honestly know what to say.

[Selta]

Originally Posted by jp58

I don't honestly know what to say.

I'm with this guy, especially since I don't know Italian law at all (not that I know USA's). My gut reaction though was "Wow, that sounds rather drastic."

[bongomania]

I've never heard of tremors in the earth that didn't indicate the possibility of an earthquake (or other natural disaster). Those seismologists may have been sleeping on the job, or paid off by the mob, but regardless--the population should have protected themselves when they started feeling tremors.

[Munjibunga]

It's got to be a political move.


_{Oooops. Can I even say political?}

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by bongomania

I've never heard of tremors in the earth that didn't indicate the possibility of an earthquake. Those seismologists may have been sleeping on the job, or paid off by the mob, but regardless--the population should have protected themselves when they started feeling tremors.

That's a joke, right?

[bongomania]

No, I'm from San Francisco, and when you feel tremors, you get in a door frame or under a heavy table. You don't watch TV to find out whether somebody thinks there could be an earthquake.

[basstotheface]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

That's a joke, right?

Everyone on TB should evacuate now. There have been tremors. Everywhere.

[Kwesi]

Wait... the government can do that?! The meteorologists better start running now while the feds have their attention directed elsewhere.

[elgecko]

Originally Posted by bongomania

No, I'm from San Francisco, and when you feel tremors, you get in a door frame or under a heavy table. You don't watch TV to find out whether somebody thinks there could be an earthquake.

They're not talking about foreshocks, they're talking about a smaller EQ that occured 1 week before the one that killed people.

"No officer, I'm a paleoseismologist! I study earthquakes, but ones that happened in the past."

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by bongomania

No, I'm from San Francisco, and when you feel tremors, you get in a door frame or under a heavy table. You don't watch TV to find out whether somebody thinks there could be an earthquake.

The Bay Area has small earthquakes all the time. They have not had a large one since October 17, 1989 (I was there). Are you saying you step into a doorway every time you feel a small earthquake? Most people I know in the Bay Area joke about them.

There is no way those seismologists could have predicted a large earthquake based on small tremors. Here's today's earthquake map for California. The ones in yellow are less than a week old, blue are less than 24 hours old, and red are in the last hour. You want to predict a major earthquake from this? (BTW, that link is always current, so if there's a big earthquake in California, you can come to this thread, click that link, and get the details with 5 minutes of its occurrence.)

Seismologists predict earthquakes based on probabilities over periods of years. Here is the earthquake prediction map for California. You'll note they don't have any predicted for next week.

[bongomania]

I guess my point is that they knew they lived someplace that earthquakes occurred, so they should have reinforced their buildings. We can't predict earthquakes reliably, and there's no sensible way to say when people should or shouldn't evacuate from an earthquake threat. So if you want to live someplace earthquakes happen, have a personal safety plan, and expect a freakin' earthquake at some point.

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

The Bay Area has small earthquakes all the time. They have not had a large one since October 17, 1989 (I was there). Are you saying you step into a doorway every time you feel a small earthquake? Most people I know in the Bay Area joke about them.

I was there too. No, I don't step into a doorway every time, but I would look to see that there's a safe-ish place nearby in case it gets worse. Note that my whole angle is personal responsibility--I would not expect anyone to evacuate from an earthquake zone, because you just can't be sure about earthquakes--but I would expect people to not get crushed in their homes from a 6.3, and then blame it on the guy on TV who said not to worry.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by bongomania

No, I'm from San Francisco, and when you feel tremors, you get in a door frame or under a heavy table. You don't watch TV to find out whether somebody thinks there could be an earthquake.

Also, you may not be aware that the seismic risk in the Pacific Northwest is high, with the possibility of a Magnitude 9 earthquake occurring on the Cascadia Subduction zone. The style of faulting there is different from the transform faulting in California, rather, it's thrust faulting capable of generating a tsunami comparable to the one that happened in Japan. These types of faults also generate significant vertical ground accelerations which play havoc on structures not designed to weigh up to twice as much as they do.

Here's a seismic risk map for Oregon, with a little article.

April 25, 2008
Michael Milstein
The Oregonian Staff

Official earthquake hazard maps that influence building codes and insurance rates now recognize what many scientists have already concluded: That a major earthquake off the Oregon Coast could be not just bad, but really, really bad. The new national seismic hazard maps released by the U.S. Geological Survey this week now reflect the increasing belief that the Cascadia Subduction Zone offshore is likely to rupture all at once, in an earthquake close to magnitude 9, probably followed by a tsunami.

Scientists now identify that as more likely than an alternate scenario where sections of the subduction zone snap individually, triggering less intense earthquakes closer to magnitude 8. A magnitude 9 earthquake would be similar to the one that produced a deadly tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004. The last such earthquake in the Pacific Northwest occurred in 1700 and is believed to have been close to magnitude 9.

Previously scientists figured there was a roughly equal probability of either size earthquake along the subduction zone, where one plate of the Earth's crust slides beneath another. This time they assigned a two-thirds chance that a subduction zone quake, if it occurs, would hit magnitude 8.8 to 9.2. "That weight has gone up to reflect the geological reality," said Craig Weaver of the Geological Survey in Seattle. "The formal hazard maps take several years to catch up to the science," said Ian Madin, a geologist with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. "It's been fairly well accepted that magnitude 9 events are probably more common." The greater possibility of the larger earthquake arose in part from the work of Chris Goldfinger, a professor at Oregon State University who has studied seafloor sediment for clues about the size of past earthquakes on the subduction zone.

Goldfinger has more recently found evidence of more frequent subduction zone earthquakes off the southern Oregon Coast, but that has not yet been folded into the maps. "It's just a case of policy lagging somewhat behind the latest information," he said in an e-mail Thursday.

SEVERE DAMAGE POTENTIAL

In practical terms, either a magnitude 8 or 9 earthquake would cause severe damage that could cripple much of the region. In Portland, buildings and bridges might collapse; and highways, water and power lines could be severed. The last version of the hazard maps, released in 2002, recognized the risk of a major earthquake in Oregon, and the new maps do not show an especially greater risk than before. Giving the larger quakes greater attention on the new maps means that earthquake risk on the Oregon Coast, for example, has "gone from really bad to worse," Madin said.

In drawing the new maps, seismologists also updated their calculations of how earthquake energy moves through the earth, based in part on what they learned from a recent earthquake in Japan. That produced a more accurate picture of how large an area would likely be rattled by tremors. That does show the potential for "a little bit stronger shaking in parts of western Oregon," said Art Frankel, a Geological Survey seismologist who worked on the maps.

BENEATH PORTLAND

Scientists designing the maps also looked more carefully at the possibility of a deep earthquake beneath Portland, like the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake near Olympia, Wash., in 2001. That damaging quake occurred deep in the Earth when a plate of the Earth's crust slid underneath the Puget Sound region. Researchers know a plate is also sliding under the continent beneath Portland, so they have suspected the Portland area could experience similar deep tremors. But so far, at least in recorded history, it generally hasn't. That has made it tough to assess the chances of such an earthquake hitting Portland, or how often it might happen, Frankel said. Since 1990, the Portland area has experienced smaller earthquakes about magnitude 2.5. So Frankel and others drew upon those to help figure how often a larger quake might occur.

They came up with an approximate projection that a magnitude 6.5 earthquake might strike Portland once every 200 to 350 years. That is much less often than the likely frequency of earthquakes in the Puget Sound region, because there the sinking plate is bent and contorted, and under greater stress. He stressed that using small earthquakes to estimate the chances of bigger ones is not precise. "It's a big extrapolation, so there are a lot of uncertainties there," he said. There were arguments among researchers as to whether such a calculation would be valid, Madin said. "It's pretty much a shot in the dark," he said.

Regardless of the colors on the latest version of the maps, experts stressed that Oregonians should be prepared for a major earthquake. "People now know that this is earthquake country, this is tsunami country -- that we need to be prepared," said Scott Burns, a professor of geology at Portland State University.

[bassybill]

As a science educator, I find scientific illiteracy amongst the general populace amusing or frustrating, depending on mood. When I read about decisions like this being based on it, then it becomes alarming.

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

*shocking news about PNW earthquake risk*

It's been a regular news item in all the papers and radio stations etc. for as long as I've been here. "Not if, but when" is the tagline they always close with. IOW, I know I live in a place that's at risk for a quake--and so should everyone else here that sees or hears any news.

What, you think I should evacuate?

[JdoubleH]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

The Bay Area has small earthquakes all the time. They have not had a large one since October 17, 1989 (I was there). Are you saying you step into a doorway every time you feel a small earthquake? Most people I know in the Bay Area joke about them.

Joke about them, heck I miss them. I was in the Orinda Safeway when Loma Prieta hit. It was like being on a really sketchy roller coaster while being pelted in the head with jars of cheese whiz and salad dressing. But I've take an earthquake over a tornado any day.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by bongomania

I was there too. No, I don't step into a doorway every time, but I would look to see that there's a safe-ish place nearby in case it gets worse. Note that my whole angle is personal responsibility--I would not expect anyone to evacuate from an earthquake zone, because you just can't be sure about earthquakes--but I would expect people to not get crushed in their homes from a 6.3, and then blame it on the guy on TV who said not to worry.

You're living in lala land. The seismologists' statement was released six months before the earthquake. So let's say they said, "Yep, it looks like there's going to be a big earthquake." Then what? Everybody evacuates and waits for six months? Or drink their wine under a heavy table for six months?

What exactly do you think the results would have been if the seismologists had predicted the earthquake? They would have been exactly the same because people would have gone on with their lives, especially after the first week or two of waiting. People who live in seismically active areas should be prepared for earthquakes at any time. Even the M_w9 that happened off Japan came as somewhat of a surprise to experts.

Frankly, all the preparation in the world is not going to do you much good in an M_w9 earthquake, especially if you live in an area where building codes are either nonexistent or not enforced. People died in a M_w5.1 in Spain just a few weeks ago. Here, a 5.1 is a minor annoyance. The people who should be prosecuted are the contractors and building inspectors that allowed structures to be built that would not withstand the shaking.

Japan is probably the most earthquake-prepared country in the world. While few people died as a result of the ground shaking, over 25,000 died from the tsunami. There is no doubt in my mind that the residents of those devastated prefectures would not have left in the face of a vague prediction that an earthquake was going to happen.

Bottom line, the prosecution of those Italian seismologists is sheer idiocy.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by bongomania

It's been a regular news item in all the papers and radio stations etc. for as long as I've been here. "Not if, but when" is the tagline they always close with. IOW, I know I live in a place that's at risk for a quake--and so should everyone else here that sees or hears any news.

What, you think I should evacuate?

Exactly my point. They are predicting a very large earthquake for your area. It could happen 10 minutes from now or 100 years from now. What are you doing to prepare? Nothing, I'll bet.

[bongomania]

OK, we've descended to the point that you're just being a troll. Never mind. *exit*