4 ms·

A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial: The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that the scientists are no

A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial: The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different: the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate, negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given to citizens. [0]: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-sentence-in-italian-seismology-trial.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-fo... So the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report...

rm999 14y ago
Interesting. As I would expect, seismologists unrelated to the case disagree with the ruling: >"It's too easy to predict an earthquake after the fact and say everyone should have cleared out, but beforehand people, for good reason, thought the risk was low," said John Vidale, a University of Washington seismologist. In fact, Vidale said, the scientists' statements that the quake was unlikely were true. "There was a very small chance of that earthquake," Vidale told LiveScience. "It didn't make sense for people to evacuate." http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict-condemned.html http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaug...
monochromatic 14y ago
> the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report This is so often the case...
Uchikoma 14y ago
What you quote says: 1. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2. "whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"
- HerrMonnezza 14y ago
  My understanding is that "precursor event" has a specific meaning in seismology, i.e., sentence 2. is more restrictive than 1. But I'm no expert, so I'll be grateful if someone with the knowledge could clarify.

rm999 14y ago

Interesting. As I would expect, seismologists unrelated to the case disagree with the ruling: >"It's too easy to predict an earthquake after the fact and say everyone should have cleared out, but beforehand people, for good reason, thought the risk was low," said John Vidale, a University of Washington seismologist. In fact, Vidale said, the scientists' statements that the quake was unlikely were true. "There was a very small chance of that earthquake," Vidale told LiveScience. "It didn't make sense for people to evacuate." http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaughter-verdict-condemned.html http://www.livescience.com/24173-laquila-earthquake-manslaug...

monochromatic 14y ago

> the whole thing looks more subtle (and sensible) than many news headlines report This is so often the case...

Uchikoma 14y ago

What you quote says: 1. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2. "whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"

HerrMonnezza 14y ago
My understanding is that "precursor event" has a specific meaning in seismology, i.e., sentence 2. is more restrictive than 1. But I'm no expert, so I'll be grateful if someone with the knowledge could clarify.