3 ms·

I am Italian (although I don't live in Italy). Those seismologists are being accused to have made statements and claims of "no worry" without bearing sufficient

I am Italian (although I don't live in Italy). Those seismologists are being accused to have made statements and claims of "no worry" without bearing sufficient scientific support. The trial will likely end in a mediatic bubble (hopefully). It may also help you knowing that the main man behind this accusations is Guido Bertolaso. He is very close to Berlusconi's government and got his own, more serious, legal troubles having to do with bribes after constructions in disastered area and prostitution. As usual, things in Italy are more complicated than what it may look. Edit: adding this link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7025719.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article70...

dan_c 15y ago
It may be helpful to remember that they were not 'scientists' at a meeting. They were members of a committee (Grandi Rischi), part of a government agency (Protezione Civile). They are accused because of their public 'role'. The title is somewhat misleading, it should be: "Italian Major Risks Committee to be tried etc.", if you search in italian press the trial is called "Processo grandi rischi", "Major Risks trial". (My opinion is that the congress was just a 'public relations' thing to 'reassure' people. The words "the scientific community tells me there is no danger", served, very likely, as an excuse for the 'politicians' to do nothing in order to prevent risks [because of the typical italian cynicism, I can't assure they were not aware of the misuse of their words.] Please note that after the earthquake the public debate was focused on the stupid problem of 'prediction of earthquakes'. Yes we can't predict earthquakes, but we can predict the effect and take measures in order to prevent risks. And it is clear that nothing was done.) [Excuse me for my bad english.]
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  yeah, someone at work just reminded me that the context was that someone was going round warning about a major earthquake (based on argon release? which i think hasn't been found a reliable predictor) and this was all in response to that. while the scientists were probably correct that the earthquake warnings were not justified, it turns out that the prediction was vaguely correct (iirc the time was off by long enough that evacuations would have been impractical). [edit: radon, not argon - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predict7 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predi... - and he didn't have the correct location or time, but was close]

dan_c 15y ago

It may be helpful to remember that they were not 'scientists' at a meeting. They were members of a committee (Grandi Rischi), part of a government agency (Protezione Civile). They are accused because of their public 'role'. The title is somewhat misleading, it should be: "Italian Major Risks Committee to be tried etc.", if you search in italian press the trial is called "Processo grandi rischi", "Major Risks trial". (My opinion is that the congress was just a 'public relations' thing to 'reassure' people. The words "the scientific community tells me there is no danger", served, very likely, as an excuse for the 'politicians' to do nothing in order to prevent risks [because of the typical italian cynicism, I can't assure they were not aware of the misuse of their words.] Please note that after the earthquake the public debate was focused on the stupid problem of 'prediction of earthquakes'. Yes we can't predict earthquakes, but we can predict the effect and take measures in order to prevent risks. And it is clear that nothing was done.) [Excuse me for my bad english.]

andrewcooke 15y ago
yeah, someone at work just reminded me that the context was that someone was going round warning about a major earthquake (based on argon release? which i think hasn't been found a reliable predictor) and this was all in response to that. while the scientists were probably correct that the earthquake warnings were not justified, it turns out that the prediction was vaguely correct (iirc the time was off by long enough that evacuations would have been impractical). [edit: radon, not argon - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predict7 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/07/local/me-quake-predi... - and he didn't have the correct location or time, but was close]