Skip to main content

Home/ New Media Ethics 2009 course/ Group items tagged Seismology

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Weiye Loh

Skepticblog » Litigation gone wild! A geologist's take on the Italian seismol... - 0 views

skepticblog.org/...litigation-gone-wild

Climate Science Earthquake Law Politics Seismology

shared by Weiye Loh on 01 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Apparently, an Italian lab technician named Giampaolo Giuliani made a prediction about a month before the quake, based on elevated levels of radon gas. However, seismologists have known for a long time that radon levels, like any other “magic bullet” precursor, are unreliable because no two quakes are alike, and no two quakes give the same precursors. Nevertheless, his prediction caused a furor before the quake actually happened. The Director of the Civil Defence, Guido Bertolaso, forced him to remove his findings from the Internet (old versions are still on line). Giuliani was also reported to the police for “causing fear” with his predictions about a quake near Sulmona, which was far from where the quake actually struck. Enzo Boschi, the head of the Italian National Geophysics Institute declared: “Every time there is an earthquake there are people who claim to have predicted it. As far as I know nobody predicted this earthquake with precision. It is not possible to predict earthquakes.” Most of the geological and geophysical organizations around the world made similar statements in support of the proper scientific procedures adopted by the Italian geophysical community. They condemned Giuliani for scaring people using a method that has not shown to be reliable.
  • most the of press coverage I have read (including many cited above) took the sensationalist approach, and cast Guiliani as the little “David” fighting against the “Goliath” of “Big Science”
  • none of the reporters bothered to do any real background research, or consult with any other legitimate seismologist who would confirm that there is no reliable way to predict earthquakes in the short term and Giuliani is misleading people when he says so. Giulian’s “prediction” was sheer luck, and if he had failed, no one would have mentioned it again.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Even though he believes in his method, he ignores the huge body of evidence that shows radon gas is no more reliable than any other “predictor”.
  • If the victims insist on suing someone, they should leave the seismologists alone and look into the construction of some of those buildings. The stories out of L’Aquila suggest that the death toll was much higher because of official corruption and shoddy construction, as happens in many countries both before and after big quakes.
  • much of the construction is apparently Mafia-controlled in that area—good luck suing them! Sadly, the ancient medieval buildings that crumbled were the most vulnerable because they were made of unreinforced masonry, the worst possible construction material in earthquake country
  • what does this imply for scientists who are working in a field that might have predictive power? In a litigious society like Italy or the U.S., this is a serious question. If a reputable seismologist does make a prediction and fails, he’s liable, because people will panic and make foolish decisions and then blame the seismologist for their losses. Now the Italian courts are saying that (despite world scientific consensus) seismologists are liable if they don’t predict quakes. They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. In some societies where seismologists work hard at prediction and preparation (such as China and Japan), there is no precedent for suing scientists for doing their jobs properly, and the society and court system does not encourage people to file frivolous suits. But in litigious societies, the system is counterproductive, and stifles research that we would like to see developed. What seismologist would want to work on earthquake prediction if they can be sued? I know of many earth scientists with brilliant ideas not only about earthquake prediction but even ways to defuse earthquakes, slow down global warming, or many other incredible but risky brainstorms—but they dare not propose the idea seriously or begin to implement it for fear of being sued.
  • Weiye Loh on 01 Jun 11
     
    In the case of most natural disasters, people usually regard such events as "acts of God" and  try to get on with their lives as best they can. No human cause is responsible for great earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, or floods. But in the bizarre world of the Italian legal system, six seismologists and a public official have been charged with manslaughter for NOT predicting the quake! My colleagues in the earth science community were incredulous and staggered at this news. Seismologists and geologists have been saying for decades (at least since the 1970s) that short-term earthquake prediction (within minutes to hours of the event) is impossible, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying. As Charles Richter himself said, "Only fools, liars, and charlatans predict earthquakes." How could anyone then go to court and sue seismologists for following proper scientific procedures?
Weiye Loh

Skepticblog » Seismologists Charged with Manslaughter - 0 views

skepticblog.org/...ists-charged-with-manslaughter

Climate Science Uncertainty Earthquake

shared by Weiye Loh on 30 May 11 - No Cached
  • On it’s surface the story is pretty sensational and downright silly: Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella said that the seven defendants had supplied “imprecise, incomplete and contradictory information,” in a press conference following a meeting held by the committee 6 days before the quake, reported the Italian daily Corriere della Sera. That may have something to do with the fact that earthquake science is imprecise, incomplete, and often produces contradictory information. The scientists and their colleagues are calling this a witch hunt and warn that it will have a chilling effect on scientists, a very real concern.
  • how should experts be held accountable for their performance. We often call upon experts to give us their expert opinion, and sometimes the stakes are very high. This happens in medicine every day – in any applied science. We cannot fault experts for not being perfect, for not foreseeing the unforeseeable, and for not having crystal balls. We do expect them to be honest and transparent about their uncertainty.
  • We can require that they meet minimal standards of competence.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • did the top seismologists of Italy commit scientific malpractice in their assessment of the risk of a large quake?
  • Another relevant issue here is the balance between warning the public about credible risks, while not panicking them. In this case the Italian seismologists said, in effect, that the recent tremors were not necessarily sign of a big quake in the near future. There still might not be a big quake for years. But, they warned, a big quake is coming eventually. That sounds like a fair assessment of the science.
  • Apparently, the judge did not like the balance that these scientists struck: The charges filed by the prosecution contends that this assessment “persuaded the victims to stay at home”, La Repubblica newspaper reported. But defense for the scientists claim that they never said anything akin to – there is no risk.
  • scientists, especially a consensus of recognized experts, should be free to express their scientific assessment to the public, without fear of being the target of later litigation (unless they really did commit scientific malpractice).
  • Politicians and regulatory agencies should take their cue from the scientific community, but may want to also add their own spin in order to tweak the balance between reassurance and preparedness.
  • Weiye Loh on 30 May 11
     
    The Italian Government has charged their top seismologists with manslaughter because they failed to predict the devastating 2009 earthquake, which killed 308 people. The scientists, and the seismology community, are stunned - primarily because it's impossible to predict earthquakes.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page