Here's a more complete article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html It seems lik

Here's a more complete article: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html It seems like the committee contained 6 geophysicists who reported to a civil defense bureaucrat (who has a PhD in Fluid Mechanics - think Civil Engineering). The geophysicists said the standard things ("we can't rule it out"). Then these deliberations were summarized by the bureaucrat for the press conference, which the geophysicists did not attend, as (presumably in Italian ;-): "The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable." And there's your trouble spot. It is wrong to misrepresent appropriately-hedged claims where life and limb are at stake. It should be a scandal. And incidentally, this is why it's really hard to be the technical person who stands in front of the press conference. Doing it well is a gift.