On Trial For Manslaughter For Failing to Predict Earthquake

Really? No shit! People died? I didn't notice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The public were not to know what, Bells? Oh wait, you're assuming that the memo wasn't released to the public before hand? That the information wasn't dissemenated?

Based on what?

Yes, thankyou for reminding me of that Bells, I had forgotten.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And more often than not, this is true. Earthquake swarms on an active fault are often a good thing, because it means that the energy that would have been released as one big quake is released as a series of smaller ones.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing facts, not public opinion?

I'm glad you seem to finally accept it as a fact that he pulled it out of his ass though, it means we've made progress. Oh, and the fact of him pulling it out of his ass is not neccessarily exclusive of him believing it was what he was told.

And there in lies another keypoint that you've danced around in this, that I have alluded to, or tried to address. Is what he understood from what he was told neccessarily what he was told? The answer to this is obvious - no, what he thinks the siesmologists were saying isn't neccessarily what they were actually saying.

Yes the did - they published a memo that contained the correct information. Whether or not that memo made it to the public, or could potentially have made it to the public is another question entirely. If the had had more time, it might have resulted in a revised statement being issued to the media. But the key point here is that the Seismologists reasonably believed they had more time than they actually did.

Again, I thought we were discussing facts, not public opinion.

Oh bullshit Bells. I understand it. And it's not what I'm disputing.

Again, some context, and some integrity on your part would be appreciated, especially if you're going to do things like accuse me of Trolling, Bells. What's that line? See to the log in your own eye before you see to the splinter in your brothers?

The meeting was convened, in L'aquilla, because Giampaolo Giuliani was driving up and down the streets in a car with loud speakers attached to the roof telling everybody that there was going to be a big earthquake - even people bringing the case before the courts have admitted that this is part of what had them so paniced. This is the context that the meeting took place in. That individual had a gag order issued against him, and was charged with upsetting the peace by making false predictions. As it happened, yes, there was an earthquake, but he got the date wrong by a week, and the location out by 50 miles.

This is the context, that you keep ignoring, or part of it.

Correct.

Not what I actually said, Bells. I believe I suggested he assumed the role - meaning he took it upon himself to speak on behalf of the committee, to make a statement that had not been discussed in the committee or agreed upon by the committee, which represented what he believed he had been told by the scientists, and which he presented as a fact.

Do you know what they call a statement that is presented as a fact without the knowledge that it is one?

They should have known better, the fact that they took him literaly is an indictment on the central government, and the local government, and the lack of education on earth quake risk, not the scientists whom had the misfortune to be involved in this committee.

Right, that is what they were told, by the committee member, that was saying things that had not been agreed upon by the committee.

Again, this is bogus bells. It was bought up, several sources that have been posted in this conversation have agreed upon that point, the thing that they have been critical is the lack of in depth discussion. I've offered you a reasonable explanation as to why there was no in depth discussion, because there was no perception of a heightened risk, because the data available at that time did not indicate one. The meeting, which had representatives of local government, appears to have been sidetracked by their desire to discuss local issues - namely how best to calm down the population after some crank had been driving up and down the streets delcaring over the loud speakers on his car "There be an earth quake coming, ya'all gonna die".

No, their job included assessing the risk of a large earthquake occuring.

Good god Bells, are you not understanding my point here?
The representative of the committee made statements on behalf of the committee that were not endorsed by the committee. Do you know what normally happens when a committee member does that? They get censured, or fired.

It may have been one of the things they were bought there to do, but they did discuss the risk of a large earthquake occuring, and concluded that it was not significantly greater than normal. This next bit is a bit I have mentioned a cuple of times, which, again, you have either ignored or not understood. If the risk of a large earthquake is about the same as it is in any other day of the year, then the risks posed to the region were the same as they were any other day of the year, in other words, the residents should be advised to do what they would ordinarily have done any other day of the year. If the residents would ordinarily have left the house after the M4 fore-shock, then they should have left their house that night. All of which is implicit in the statement that a large earthquake could not be ruled out.

Two may have been there, but only one of them spoke - this smacks of clucthing at straws, to be honest Bells.

No Bells, now you're just being absurd and misrepresenting what I've said. If you're going to keep this sort of rubbish up, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to end this conversation. I have risks to evaluate, and guidelines to write.

Because some nutter had been storming up and down the street waving placqards in the air screaming at the top of his lungs "The end of the world is nigh", and people were taking him seriously because he held a science degree - even some of the informants bringing the charges have admitted they were worried by what this nutter had to say.

Including the pamphlets labled "Ten good reasons not to worry about the nutter down the road with the placqard proclaiming the end of the world".

Something which is often true.

I agree - the politician fucked things up for the scientists by misrepresenting what he was told, and being to eager to pander to the public, and spoke out of turn, without first getting the mandate of the committee (he assumed it), and verifying the accuracy of his statements (he assumed it). That's not a failing of the committee, that's a failing of the individual.

The public who listened because neither the central government nor the local government had spent the time and money to educate them on the seismic risked faced by the region, and which the local government had no budget to protect or evacuate.

And that, if you ask me, is the real crime here.

Right, because the percieved risk of an earthquake was at about background levels, and because dealing with buildings that are not up to code is a long term project that is dealt with by local government. Fulfilling their jobm in respect to that list, is achieved when they hand the list over to the local government and say "These buildings are not up to code, you've got six months to do something about it".

That's education. That's an educational campaign. That's not their job. Their job is to ensure that the local government achieves that goal. And yes, it might have been prudent for local government to undertake a regional campaign of reminding people what to do in the event of a large earthquake, and they may well have if they had had more time.

The charges are BS scape goat charges that are making an example of the seismologists. Remember the statement by the mayor, that it is his hope that the seismologists facing charges will lead to him having a budget for saftey and prevention?

Doesn't that bother you in the slightest? Personally, it gives me the shits, and sends shivers up my spine, because it suggests to me that the seismologists are nothing more than scape goats.

I mean seriously. The policy makers had been given four years warning that what happened would happen, and what did they do about it? Not a dam thing.

The trial is a three-ring circus, and will only serve as a distraction from the real source of the problem, which lies in central and local government.

 

Your analogy utterly fails, on so many levels I have to assume that this is some attempt at humor, only it's not actually funny.

 

Trippy, that Committee is what the Central Government sent to that region to educate and advise them.

When you actually grasp that concept, you may understand why what they failed to do was bad.

Let me put it to you this way. Assume you are hired by the Government to sit on a committee to advise the public about risks regarding earthquakes, etc. Now, lets say you and the rest of the committee is sent to Christchurch by the "central government" after months of tremors and small quakes, to advise the public of any risk in the event of a bigger quake.

Would you:

a) Tell them there will be no earthquake
b) Advise the public that they should always remain on alert since it is such an active area
c) Keep all the information you had gathered about buildings you knew were at risk in the event of a bigger quake to yourself
d) Release the information you have along with option (b)


That was the choice of that committee and they went with a) and c).

Now, you seem to believe that the public should have known better than to believe the scientist and his fellow committee member and what was said in that meeting... Which is absurd, seeing the committee was made up of so called experts in their field and they failed to even discuss any risk in the event of an earthquake.

So you expect the public to know more or better than what the so called experts tell them?

The committee's role, ie what they were hired by the "central Government" to do, was to educate the public in its findings. They failed to do so completely. What they did instead was to tell them 'there won't be an earthquake'. That scientist stood there as his fellow committee member made that statement and said nothing. And you think the public should have said 'you're lying!' and ignored them?

You say Asguard's analogy is flawed. Actually it is not.

When you need information about something, you go and see an expert. You expect what that expert tells you is correct. You do not expect them to tell you 'don't worry, go home' when there is a risk or when there is something wrong.

It is as if you are blaming the public for not knowing better. Should they have known that the scientist and committee member who fronted the press conference had a list of buildings in the area that would be a danger in the event of an earthquake? Shouldn't that scientist have passed that information on? He did not. He said nothing when his fellow member told the public there would be no earthquake. The meeting consisted of a bunch of scientists not discussing what the risks are of a bigger quake but instead trying to tell them there was nothing to worry about, what one seismologist from a neighbouring area described as a "grotesque pantomine".. At no time was the risk to the area even brought up (ie buildings that posed a danger, a list they had). They were too intent on disputing a fellow scientists who was warning that there was an increased risk of a bigger earthquake..

Other seismologists have agreed that they failed to give correct and accurate information about the risks involved in the event of a bigger quake. While they don't think they should be tried for it, there is quite a bit of consensus that they failed to actually give correct information and give that information to the public they were meant to be giving it to.

 

No Bells, as it stands, you're making shit up. You need to take a step back, re-read what I have had to say, take the time to understand exactly where I am placing any blame. Actually take the time to understand what I actually have to say, and do better than this blatantly dishonest bullshit, because so far you haven't understood what I've had to say on the matter and this statement alone proves that.

Meanwhile, I'm not going to reply in any greater depth tonight, and probably not tomorrow, because reading this kind of blatant bullshit is really bad for my blood pressure.

 

Bells, take a moment to think about this statement:

In light of this statement:

Take a moment to think about what I'm actually saying, and when you're able to address that, instead of what you want me to be saying, or what you think I'm saying, come find me.

 

No, this is crap.

So close, and yet so far.

They didn't give shit advice, remember? The advice of the seismologists, to the committee, and to the government was that the risk of a large earthquake COULD NOT BE RULED OUT.

No, it's only your UTTERLY FAILED, bordering on CLUSTER FUCK understanding of my position that's stupid.

Stop addressing me, you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't understood my position, right from the start.

 

Not really.

Time and again you see forecasting and predictions about certain weather events, as one example, which comes down to telling people to simply be prepared. For some, evacuation orders are given and others telling people what to check (safety around the home, building codes, etc).

That was that this committee of scientists was tasked with. To assess the risk to the public of a quake or the chance of a quake. Seismologists from around the world acknowledge they failed to do that. They themselves acknowledged they failed to do that. They acknowledged they did not even discuss what the risk to the region was if there was a bigger earthquake.

That committee is what the Government sent to that area to advise. A seismologist from a neighbouring region thought it was a "grotesque pantomine".. That they didn't advise.

The world wide scramble from the scientific community fails to recogise that they actually didn't do their job. The reaction from the scientific community is galling because in a sense, it shows the desire to not be held responsible if anything does go wrong.. that they as scientists should somehow be held above the fray and not be held accountable. It does not work that way. Seismologists admit they failed to provide correct and proper information, that they did not communicate correctly.. That they failed to do so.

No one expected them to predict an earthquake. I think the belief that this is what they are being charged with stems from media sensationalism. What was expected of them was to advise what the dangers were if there was an earthquake. What they did instead was to tell the public 'there won't be an earthquake'. And then told the public that the continued tremors were good and would not get worse. And the public acted on those words. Instead of running out, they thought it was just a tremor and a good thing as it would reduce the chances of a bigger quake, as they had been told by that committee.

It also needs to be recognised that it is the public and the survivors who acted on their advice and words who pushed for this. This wasn't reactionary. The charges stemmed after countless interviews and investigations. Their failure to communicate the risks of an earthquake (as in what the risks were to the public in the event of an earthquake) was wrong. And frankly, at first, found this whole case ridiculous. But the more I look into it, the more it seems that the survivors deserve better. They deserve to have their questions answered. There shouldn't be a passing the buck to the local Government. These guys were the experts. They should have acted and behaved like it.

Just because they are scientists does not mean they are absolved of all responsibility.

Willy Aspinall wrote a brilliant piece on this trial. It is well worth the read.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/477251a.html

 

Do you know anything about any of the individuals involved?

It's obvious the answer is no.

Your analogy is falls short of the mark because Bernadinis is a fluid dynamicist, not a seismologist. Why is that important? Well tell me - if a Podiatrist or a Dermatologist came and told you that there was no chance of your cancer coming back, would you take their word for it? Or would you go and find an Oncologist?

That is why your analogy is shit.

 

And this, right here, is the kind of thing that leads me to ask if you're actually taking in anything that I have had to say.

Legal action was taken against the last seismologist in Italy to reccomend evacuation on the basis of an earthquake swarm, because the big earthquake that was predicted did not eventuate.

 

Precisely - I did a metric shit ton of research on the commission lastnight, and the overwhelming impression that I get from that research is that the commissions job is to provide a centralized, and uniform source for technical advice to enable local government to make the appropriate risk management decisions - which they did, and the advice the provided, to the local government - that a large quake could not be ruled out, was correct.

So far there's been a lot of gum flapping about the meeting being short, but no one (aside from me obviously) seems to have looked into why the meeting was short. Bernadinis cut the meeting short so he could attened a press conference that he had arranged. There's that name again, Bernadinis. Bernadinis gave the bad advice, Bernadinis cut the meeting short, Bernadinis spoke out of turn, so if anyone on the committee should be held responsible, who would it be?

Likewise Bells keeps flapping her gums about a list. The list wasn't new. The list was first published in 1999, and updated in 2005.

So, the local government was warned in 1998 that a large earthquake was due.
The local government was warned in 1999 which buildings were at risk of collapse.
The local government was warned in 2005 that the shaking would be worse than anticipated, and reminded which buildings would collapse.

So the local government had ten years worth of warning, by the committee that what happened would happen, and yet, some how, when the inevitable happens, and occurs in the manner predicted, it's the seismologists fault.