2012-10-23, 10:44 AM
I'm going through the article in Science right now. Even if it's true that the citizens are less angry over the scientists not predicting the earthquake and more that proper information was not given, the very fact that they admit that area has a lot of tremors shows how silly it'd be for scientists to drop their instruments every time one slightly larger than usual happened.
According to the case, it seems like the scientists are being charged mostly because the series of tremors prior to this earthquake was not addressed appropriately and citizens were not given enough information to decide if they should escape or not. This is a very bad precedent to have if it results in scientists always throwing up alarms even if it's only possible as this is already one of those places where the scientists would be pulling the bell strings then. And then there's this quote:
It would definitely be troubling if the scientists really did insist that there was absolutely no need to make buildings with stronger structures but let's be realistic, they don't get to decide all of that on their own (And we don't know the whole story, what else was said?). Furthermore, the article also notes that L'Aquilla is a medieval city and the task of strengthening the buildings while maintaining the buildings itself doesn't seem like it'd be too easy and would likely have been met with objections.
Those scientists don't deserve to be convicted of a charge like manslaughter but assessing the work required to strengthen buildings in the area should definitely be done (And is far more important than giving the angry public something to shoot IMO). There's also a need to evaluate how much risk is too risky for a disaster; should we consider a 2% probability as being too risky; should there be a threshold for scientists to base their reports depending on the area's earthquake history?
What I personally feel about this after combing through both articles is that either one is not good: Too little warnings and too many reassurances lead to another L'Aquilla, too many warnings lead to residents not caring, which in turn leads to another L'Aquilla. I simply do not think it's fair for the scientists to be prosecuted as the increasing series of tremors prior to this may have terrified the residents but 1) It was still a far cry from the actual earthquake that killed 600+ people and 2) There's no concrete evidence that it would have become an earthquake (As according to the scientists. That an earthquake did in fact happen this time is secondary considering that they were pretty much hired to conclude based on their findings if people ought to pack up or stay put). We're not talking about something like a 9.0 scale earthquake happening underwater that will definitely trigger a tsunami; something like this appears to be fairly common to the seismologists.
According to the case, it seems like the scientists are being charged mostly because the series of tremors prior to this earthquake was not addressed appropriately and citizens were not given enough information to decide if they should escape or not. This is a very bad precedent to have if it results in scientists always throwing up alarms even if it's only possible as this is already one of those places where the scientists would be pulling the bell strings then. And then there's this quote:
Quote:The scientific message conveyed at the meeting was anything but reassuring, according to Selvaggi. "If you live in L'Aquila, even if there's no swarm," he says, "you can never say, 'No problem.' You can never say that in a high-risk region." But there was minimal discussion of the vulnerability of local buildings, say prosecutors, or of what specific advice should be given to residents about what to do in the event of a major quake. Boschi himself, in a 2009 letter to civil-protection officials published in the Italian weekly news magazine L'Espresso, said: "actions to be undertaken were not even minimally discussed".
It would definitely be troubling if the scientists really did insist that there was absolutely no need to make buildings with stronger structures but let's be realistic, they don't get to decide all of that on their own (And we don't know the whole story, what else was said?). Furthermore, the article also notes that L'Aquilla is a medieval city and the task of strengthening the buildings while maintaining the buildings itself doesn't seem like it'd be too easy and would likely have been met with objections.
Those scientists don't deserve to be convicted of a charge like manslaughter but assessing the work required to strengthen buildings in the area should definitely be done (And is far more important than giving the angry public something to shoot IMO). There's also a need to evaluate how much risk is too risky for a disaster; should we consider a 2% probability as being too risky; should there be a threshold for scientists to base their reports depending on the area's earthquake history?
What I personally feel about this after combing through both articles is that either one is not good: Too little warnings and too many reassurances lead to another L'Aquilla, too many warnings lead to residents not caring, which in turn leads to another L'Aquilla. I simply do not think it's fair for the scientists to be prosecuted as the increasing series of tremors prior to this may have terrified the residents but 1) It was still a far cry from the actual earthquake that killed 600+ people and 2) There's no concrete evidence that it would have become an earthquake (As according to the scientists. That an earthquake did in fact happen this time is secondary considering that they were pretty much hired to conclude based on their findings if people ought to pack up or stay put). We're not talking about something like a 9.0 scale earthquake happening underwater that will definitely trigger a tsunami; something like this appears to be fairly common to the seismologists.