Italian scientists get earthquake blamed on them (I wish I was making this up)

Allyall

I wonder if that Judge sentenced anyone to a Prison, where they were killed as a result of being in that prison.. E.G. An Earthquake they couldn't escape from, or a Shank in the back etc..

Would he then be guilty of Manslaughter?
Surely he knew that in the event of an Earthquake, they wouldn't be able to escape..






There's a jumbled up point in there somewhere

ArtSmart

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Lots of people get off murder charges and such over there on appeal.

I'd be shocked if they didn't get off on appeal.

But there may be a little more to it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626
BBC comments page

So the people who predict earthquakes are liable yet the people who build buildings that collapse and kill people are not?????
...
BBC is doing disinformation with this article: there's no mention of what happened behind the scene, context and wire tapped phone calls of Bertolaso who decided what the scientists where supposed to say because as he literally said they were just a media event, this and more can be found in Italian on La Repubblica homepage.

http://www.geologyinmotion.com/2012/02/update-on-trial-of-italian.html

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/wiretap-revelation-could-aid-italian-seismologists-defence.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285754/Italys-corruption-police-tape-Popes-phone-calls.html



http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lastampa.it%2F2012%2F10%2F22%2Fitalia%2Fcronache%2Fcommissione-grandi-rischi-sei-anni-a-tutti-gli-imputati-fk9eFTJmzpST4peiPWYZhP%2Fpagina.html

That's some mighty fine posting. Kudos. from the Italian i talked to - it is the endemic corruption in Italy which is the central issue, guess this event illustrates that. (subsequently found out Italy ranks worse than some Latin America countries in the corruption index.)

at least the legal system hasnt gone crazy after all.

Jimoslimos

I think Capt'n might have hit upon the actual issue, corruption, and being Italy probably means everyone involved, from prosecutors to defendants, are guilty to some degree.

Still, it's a stretch to extrapolate a manslaughter charge from this.

daigo75

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think Capt'n might have hit upon the actual issue, corruption, and being Italy probably means everyone involved, from prosecutors to defendants, are guilty to some degree.

Corruption starts from the bottom level of public service. I wouldn't be surprised if even the janitors of primary schools were corrupt, after I discovered that some members of the town council in a tiny village (less than 2000 people) were all guilty of it.

Jimoslimos

daigo75 wrote: »

Corruption starts from the bottom level of public service. I wouldn't be surprised if even the janitors of primary schools were corrupt, after I discovered that some members of the town council in a tiny village (less than 2000 people) were all guilty of it.

Oh most definitely agree, and that applies for most countries. People who argue for devolution of powers and taxation to local councils should perhaps take a closer look at their councillors. Because in many cases they make the TDs in the Dáil look like a shining beacon of honesty, integrity and most worryingly of all, intelligence.

What does a custodial sentence achieve here?

Ellis Dee

There's nothing new here. Scientists in Italy who are not careful about what they say have been finding themselves in deep sh1t for centuries. Just look at the example of Galileo, who said (rightly, as most people now accept) that the Earth goes around the Sun ---:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

pickarooney

Deleted User wrote: »

Does this mean I can sue Met Eireann?

Sounds like a lesbian version of When Harry Met Sally.

Jimoslimos

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Then you clearly didn't read the article, the OP is way off in his summary.

They are not being blamed for the Earthquake, they are being blamed for their handling of the disaster and the failure to issue the correct warnings beforehand.

Problem is people are notorious at judging risk, we still smoke, drive recklessly, etc. The prosecution claims this wasn't about prediction but in reality it was - people don't want boring numbers and stats, and in any case are ill-equipped to make sense of them - they want it simplified to yes/no.

the_syco

ArtSmart wrote: »

It aint. For all its madness the Banana Republic of Ireland is streets ahead.

E-bay doesn't send stuff to Nigeria and Italy. Nigeria because of the scammers, Italy because the Mafia check the post, and anything of value doesn't get through.

flo_indublin

<quote> What should have Italy done? They should have taken their fingers out of their arses and concentrated on making structures more quakeproof. Take Greece and Turkey for example. All modern buildings since the early 70's have been built with a specific frame in mind that takes stress off the structures and offloads it elsewhere. In Italy this is non existant. This is not the first quake that caused a large amount of damage in terms of human lives and financial costs.</quote>

I didn't read the whole thread just wanted to reply to this comment:
Has anybody pointed out yet that half of Italy's buildings was built in the Middle Ages and Renaissance? I agree regarding modern buildings but as making everything quakes proof....I've lived in Turkey and they don't have full towns built in the Middle Ages. Italy does and L'Aquila was one of them. The entire historical centre that collapsed was built in the Middle Ages and there are hundreds of towns like L'Aquila in Italy. On the other hand the country is highly earthquakes prone. But to make most buildings safe all over the country requires huge resources for the reasons above.

Besides, when there's an earthquake in Turkey the death toll is pretty high too unfortunately.

VinLieger

flo_indublin wrote: »

I didn't read the whole thread just wanted to reply to this comment:
Has anybody pointed out yet that half of Italy's buildings was built in the Middle Ages and Renaissance? I agree regarding modern buildings but as making everything quakes proof....I've lived in Turkey and they don't have full towns built in the Middle Ages. Italy does and L'Aquila was one of them. The entire historical centre that collapsed was built in the Middle Ages and there are hundreds of towns like L'Aquila in Italy. On the other hand the country is highly earthquakes prone. But to make most buildings safe all over the country requires huge resources for the reasons above.

Yeah much easier to just blame the sicentists and fine them 3 million than actually look for a practical reason why all this happened.
People know this area is earthquake prone and chose to live there, people know these buildings cannot possibly withstand a big quake and chose not to reinforce them. Yet the scientists are to blame?

flo_indublin

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah much easier to just blame the sicentists and fine them 3 million than actually look for a practical reason why all this happened.
People know this area is earthquake prone and chose to live there, people know these buildings cannot possibly withstand a big quake and chose not to reinforce them. Yet the scientists are to blame?

I don't argue with that. Obviously as much as possible should be done to reinforce buildings.

My point was in reply to the poster who said that Italy is doing nothing while Turkey and Greece are so good with their building regulations and that all their buildings post 1970's are sound.

I was just highlighting the fact that in Italy half the towns in the country - that is hundreds of them - were built before the 1500s and that making the country's buildings safe (mafia aside) is a titanic endeavour.

flo_indublin

the_syco wrote: »

E-bay doesn't send stuff to Nigeria and Italy. Nigeria because of the scammers, Italy because the Mafia check the post, and anything of value doesn't get through.

I just saw this now. I'm not denying the huge problem of corruption and mafia in Italy but this statement is....So what about http://www.ebay.it/? :-)

daigo75

flo_indublin wrote: »

I just saw this now. I'm not denying the huge problem of corruption and mafia in Italy but this statement is....So what about http://www.ebay.it/? :-)

ebay.it doesn't count, as it is local to Italy. What happens in Italy, stays in Italy. A more correct statement would be that many international ebay sellers don't ship to Italy, but it's also because of scammers (as with Nigeria), not only because of mafia. Anyway, we are going off topic now.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

What does a custodial sentence achieve here?

my understanding is this :

The reasons for the prediction were political rather than scientific.

It's not because they failed to predict an earthquake, because no one can predict that.

It's that they predicted that there would NOT be an earthquake.
No one can predict that.

And people who preparing to evacuate stayed and died.

CruelCoin

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Crazy! Who next, meterologists? Michael Fish must be sh1tting himself.

I wouldn't say no.

I'm in an industry that relies heavily upon good weather.

If i'm told that it will be good weather at night and it turns out freezing, my believing the forecast and not protecting my goods means i'm out of pocket by thousands.

I can understand if there is a slight difference, but it has happened several times in the past where a +2/3c prediction became -4/5c in reality. Thats not a small mistake.

If you're being paid to do something, you're being paid to do it well.

In short, yes, gross incompetence that causes loss to others should be punished.

Bruthal

CruelCoin wrote: »

I wouldn't say no.

I'm in an industry that relies heavily upon good weather.

If i'm told that it will be good weather at night and it turns out freezing, my believing the forecast and not protecting my goods means i'm out of pocket by thousands.

I can understand if there is a slight difference, but it has happened several times in the past where a +2/3c prediction became -4/5c in reality. Thats not a small mistake.

If you're being paid to do something, you're being paid to do it well.

In short, yes, gross incompetence that causes loss to others should be punished.

Well then, not accepting weather predictions as infallible would seem sensible, instead of blaming others for not being infallible.

CruelCoin

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well then, not accepting weather predictions as infallible would seem sensible, instead of blaming others for not being infallible.

I'm not asking for that.

Prediction is not perfect. That does not account for +2/3 becoming -4/5 however.

There is a difference between margins of error and enormous ****-ups.

If that prediction had been +1/2 i would have laid out the protection on the off chance it might actually dip below freezing. At no point is it remotely reasonable to expect a dip of 6 degrees.....

VinLieger

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm not asking for that.

Prediction is not perfect. That does not account for +2/3 becoming -4/5 however.

There is a difference between margins of error and enormous ****-ups.

If that prediction had been +1/2 i would have laid out the protection on the off chance it might actually dip below freezing. At no point is it remotely reasonable to expect a dip of 6 degrees.....

Fair enough you know something about weather forecasting but you know nothing about seismology.
Neither do i for that matter but i know enough that it is one of the most inaccurate and hard to predict sciences in the world, they simply have not come up with a way to accurately predict how when and on what scale earthquakes will occur.
They said the earthquake would be small and there was no reason to evacuate, they got it wrong not because they were being irresponsible but because the data and information they had available to them told them this.
If they called for an evacuation for every small quake they thought was coming because it might be big they'd be fired after a week cus chances are half of them wouldnt happen and the others would be just a tremor.
Japan is the prime example of seismology and attitude to earthquakes done right, there they dont announce earthquakes or sue the scientists who get it wrong, they have adapted their buildings and culture to cope and then get on with their lives. If an earthquake hits it hits, it might be predicted it might not but they have enough failsafes to deal with it.
Italy does not and they are using the scientists as scapegoats to coverup the MASSIVE corruption prevailent in the country and this area that is ultimately solely responsible for these deaths

Franticfrank

Italy does not and they are using the scientists as scapegoats to coverup the MASSIVE corruption prevailent in the country and this area that is ultimately solely responsible for these deaths

I agree with that line of thought. The whole thing is absolute madness. Oh the Italians - hope these scientists manage to walk out of prison like Amanda Knox.

Nichololas

CruelCoin wrote: »

I wouldn't say no.

I'm in an industry that relies heavily upon good weather.

If i'm told that it will be good weather at night and it turns out freezing, my believing the forecast and not protecting my goods means i'm out of pocket by thousands.

I can understand if there is a slight difference, but it has happened several times in the past where a +2/3c prediction became -4/5c in reality. Thats not a small mistake.

If you're being paid to do something, you're being paid to do it well.

In short, yes, gross incompetence that causes loss to others should be punished.

How much do you lose if the reverse happens - you're told that it's likely to be -4/5c in the morning and it's actually +2/3c?

What if Met Eireann predicts +2/3c, and then some guy works at a weather station publicly predicts -4/5c on shaky scientific grounds? Even if it turns out that the guy is correct, it's still a very shaky prediction and Met Eireann would still be right to say "Hey, no, that's not what we think." Because that's essentially what happened here..

There are several factors that caused the deaths and most stem from political mismanagement, neither the science nor the meteorologists are to blame.

CruelCoin

Nichololas wrote: »

How much do you lose if the reverse happens - you're told that it's likely to be -4/5c in the morning and it's actually +2/3c?

What if Met Eireann predicts +2/3c, and then some guy works at a weather station publicly predicts -4/5c on shaky scientific grounds? Even if it turns out that the guy is correct, it's still a very shaky prediction and Met Eireann would still be right to say "Hey, no, that's not what we think." Because that's essentially what happened here..

There are several factors that caused the deaths and most stem from political mismanagement, neither the science nor the meteorologists are to blame.

You know the phrase "i'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

The consequence of warning for a minor quake and receiving a medium (and resultant deaths) quake far outweigh the inconvenience of the reverse occurring.

Given the above would it not be fair to err on the side of caution? I would have thought so.

Being jailed for inaccurate predictions would have been wrong, but being jailed for making predictions that if wrong result is so much loss and suffering is perfectly fine to punish.

Mickeroo

Nature have posted up a reaction to the verdict too:

Despite the way the verdict has been portrayed in the media as an attack on science, it is important to note that the seven were not on trial for failing to predict the earthquake. As members of an official risk commission, they had all participated in a meeting held in L’Aquila on 31 March 2009, during which they were asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of the many tremors that had hit the city in the previous months, and responded by saying that the earthquake risk was clearly raised but that it was not possible to offer a detailed prediction. The meeting was unusually quick, and was followed by a press conference at which the Civil Protection Department and local authorities reassured the population, stating that minor shocks did not increase the risk of a major one.

Full reaction here: http://www.nature.com/news/shock-and-law-1.11643

Something stinks about the whole thing. Ridiculous decision.

VinLieger

CruelCoin wrote: »

You know the phrase "i'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

The consequence of warning for a minor quake and receiving a medium (and resultant deaths) quake far outweigh the inconvenience of the reverse occurring.

Given the above would it not be fair to err on the side of caution? I would have thought so.

Being jailed for inaccurate predictions would have been wrong, but being jailed for making predictions that if wrong result is so much loss and suffering is perfectly fine to punish.

This is an area of Italy that is hit by earthquakes alot, generally just minor ones, but on a weekly basis, if they evacuated every time because of what "might" be a big one they would never get anything done and the scientists would be fired on the spot for all the "false" alarms, so no its not best to err on the side of caution.
Its not the predictions that caused the loss of life its the fact that this area is know to have earthquakes and yet for years NOTHING has been done to reinforce current houses or introuduce planning laws that require new buildings to be reinforced, which is where your quote "i'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." seems to have fallen on deaf ears as far as italian policy makers go

Tomk1

Building standards: Poor building standards or construction materials seem to have further contributed to the large number of victims. According to firefighters and other rescuers, some concrete elements of the fallen buildings "seemed to have been made poorly, possibly with sand". An official at Italy's Civil Protection Agency, Franco Barberi, said that "in California, an earthquake like this one would not have killed a single person".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Aquila

Instead of quake-proofing buildings, expected a date & time from seismolgists whose 100% predictive guesstimate is within 3 decades, when they should have been sacrificing bulls to Neptune of course if the quake still struck, they didn't sacrifice enough bulls. aah sacrifice a few scientists that will solve it.

To me, the righteousness of this court's verdit is falsely reassuring !!

Bruthal

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm not asking for that.

Prediction is not perfect. That does not account for +2/3 becoming -4/5 however.

There is a difference between margins of error and enormous ****-ups.

If that prediction had been +1/2 i would have laid out the protection on the off chance it might actually dip below freezing. At no point is it remotely reasonable to expect a dip of 6 degrees.....

Well if you fear a dip below freezing, a prediction of +2 would seem to be cutting it a bit fine, closer than 6 degrees anyway. But at least the -5 gave you someone else to blame.