3 ms·

> The correct answer the scientists should have given at the time is "yes, there may be an earthquake. Or there might not be. We can't tell." Not just saying wh

> The correct answer the scientists should have given at the time is "yes, there may be an earthquake. Or there might not be. We can't tell." Not just saying what the politicians wanted to hear. Not just putting out a statement to placate people and make them feel safe. That is certainly negligent. This is not an attack on science. This is holding authority to account for their negligence. Please post and tell us what the scientists said with authentic appropriate references.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  Selective amnesia? Here's another and more important snip from the article. The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago

Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting president of the committee, held a press conference in L'Aquila, where De Bernardinis told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable". No other members of the committee were at the press conference. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html

denzil_correa 14y ago
Selective amnesia? Here's another and more important snip from the article. The minutes of the 31 March meeting, though, reveal that at no point did any of the scientists say that there was "no danger" of a big quake. "A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out," Boschi said. Selvaggi is quoted as saying that "in recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event". Eva added that "because L'Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake". Summing up the meeting, Barberi said, "there is no reason to believe that a swarm of minor events is a sure predictor of a major shock". All the participants agreed that buildings in the area should be monitored urgently, to assess their capacity to sustain a major shock.