On Trial For Manslaughter For Failing to Predict Earthquake

:Rolleyes:
Asguard, even if they had fuel on board, these things aren't always predictable, kind of like an earthquake.

Yes, Orbital mechanics is pretty well set in concrete as far as we are aware, but, orbital mechanics aren't the only thing at play. Consider Billvon's post:

Things changed between predictions, much like at L'aquilla.

In the case of the UARS satellite, the satelite changed its configuration. Something happened like a bit that was attached to the satelite came loose at one end, and started hanging off the satelite, or the direction it was pointing changed, which changed the amount of atmospheric drag that the satelite experienced, and bought it down sooner than had originally been anticipated.

It could have just as easily been a large CME that injected some energy into the atmosphere. The point being that you can plan all you want, but there are some things you can not neccessarily know whether or not they will happen, so you make a business as usual prediction.

In the case of the L'aquilla quake, the areal distribution of the earthquakes changed - the activity became more focused, the temporal activity of the earthquakes changed - they became more frequent, and the distribution of the magnitudes changed - this is a little harder to explain in a straight forward fashion. These changes occured ten days before the main shock, which means that at the time of the press conference, they would have had access to maybe two or three days worth of this information, which isn't necessarily enough to distinguish between an actual change, and a cluster - an anomaly in the data. I can provide a peer reviewed paper to support this, to prove that I'm not making stuff up, but then, is there any point?

This is a technical point that I have raised two or three times now, that so far no one has seen fit to address.

 

Generally speaking, yeah, and there in lies the ethical dilemna in earth quake prediction.

If I developed a method of earthquake prediction that's 98% accurate, would I publish the results?

Earthquake predictions cause stress, anxiety and panic. We've seen it here in NZ in Christchurch with Ken Ring, who was at one stage sent death threats over his wrong predictions, and I've pointed to the evidence for it in some of the material that's been discussed in this thread, another point that seems to have been largely glossed over - even the Journalist that is one of the parties bringing the charges has explicitly stated that the predictions that had been made based on Radon had him scared.

And that's without counting the economic cost, and the potential loss of life. And, especially in todays increasingly litiginous society, is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to see a seismologist with a 98% accurate prediction method, who got caught out by the 1 in 50 failure being sued for damages and loss of earnings?

 

And once again, you completely miss the point in your rush to respond.

The fact that it is unpredictable is precisely the point.

The fact that it is unpredictable means that even though all of the available information points to a situation where there is no danger, situations can change.

See, once again, you've failed to understand my point, and this is why the medical analogies so utterly utterly fail.

The situation at the time of the earthquake was not the same as the situation at the time the statement was made.

Just like, between the first NASA statement, and the second NASA statement regarding the UARS satelite, the situation changed.

I keep raising this point, and you keep missing it. But if you must insist on these ridiculous medical analogies, it has more in common with the scenario where someone with flu like symptoms gets sent home and later dies of meningitis. Or someone who get sent home with a diagnosis of food poisoning that later turns out to be liver cancer.

The sole problem in all of this isn't with the scientist, it's with the average person, and I've said the same thing in the anti vaccine threads that crop up from time to time as well. The problem is that the average person expects someone to be 100% correct 100% of the time as soon as they get a few letters after their name. The idea that they might be human, an they might make a mistake just goes right out of thier head.

 

Well that's the thing. Manslaughter is a stretch at most.

What it comes down to is whether the members of that committee, scientist and non-scientist alike actually did what they were employed by the Government to do, which was to assess the risk if a bigger earthquake were to happen in the region, and whether they fulfilled that expectation correctly and properly. And does their failing to do their job amount to criminal liability. The Italian courts believe it does.

The whole scenario was a bit of a joke. The meeting taking place outside of Rome and in public is a first for that committee. They stated themselves, scientist and non-scientist members alike, that they had gone there to "pacify" the scared locals. And pacify they did. One seismologist from a neighbouring region thought it was a "grotesque pantomine", because they weren't discussing the risks but were more interested in pacifying the locals.

There seems to be this mistaken belief that it is science on trial and that they are being tried because they failed to predict a bigger earthquake. It actually is not about that. What it is about is whether those on that committee were negligent in not assessing the risks to the region. The members in danger is the one who spoke at that press conference and the scientist who accompanied him to said conference. The first because he gave the public false and misleading information while representing that Government committee and the scientist for failing to even provide the list of buildings he had compiled of buildings that posed a danger to lives in that region if a bigger quake were to occur.

From all the 'rah rah rah' they're trying scientists in the 21st century for earthquake prediction.. Put it into this perspective. Imagine if you live in a region prone to cyclones and floods/surges. And there are levies in place that offer the town protection. A cyclone is approaching and the committee in charge of assessing risks of flooding and surges and is in charge of checking the levies comes out and says 'there will be no flooding or surges, stay home and drink some wine'. The meeting they had in the town was just to reassure the townsfolk and did not once discuss the risk of the levy failing or of flooding in the area with the cyclone approaching. The towns folk remain home and relax as the cyclone bears down on them. One of the scientists committee member who had fronted the media has a list of weak points in the levy and knows that a cyclone more than a cat 2 would cause it to fail, flooding major residential areas. He remains silent and does not pass on that information. The cyclone approaches and is a cat 4 and the levy fails and over 300 people drown.

Would you be saying the same argument as you have in this thread?

One of those scientists did exactly that. He had an actual list of the buildings he knew posed a danger if a bigger quake were to hit the very active region. Not once during the committee meeting, the very public one, did he bring up that list. He also did not discuss that list during the press conference which he attended.

I think that at the very least, he should have some questions to answer. I think they should explain why a meeting being held to discuss what the risk to the region would be if there were a bigger quake did not involve discussing any such risk, but instead focused on pacifying the locals.

As I said, manslaughter is a stretch. But from what I have seen thus far, there appears to be a strong enough case for negligence there that cannot be ignored. Just because they are scientists does not absolve them of their responsibilities.

 

Just because I disagree with her doesn't make me wrong. And I have understood her point, regardless, I disagree with how she seems to think it applies, equally, if you had been following the discussion, you would have noticed that I am of the general opinion that, like you, she has not actually understood the argument(s) that I havre presented.

And, no offense to Bells, but I work with Lawyers on a dailey basis,a nd am well familiar with the lengths they will go to to stretch the law to fit around their case.

As an example, there was a case that I was involved with recently where a company was charged with (effectively) illegally taking water from a ground water source (an artesian bore, to be precise). Their defense was that because they took the water through a tap, and because the tap took the water from a pipe, and because water in a pipe was not considered water for the purposes of the relevant law, that there was no offense to answer to.

So, again, no offense to Bells, but she hasn't actually demonstrated that she has taken in what my argument actually is.

 

2<6

You mean the list that had been available to the public and the local government since 1999, and was updated in 2005? That same list?

Right. A list that had been public knowledge for ten years by this point (by the same scientist, no less), and updated 4 years prior, a list which the local government failed failed to undertake any enforcement what so ever over.

Right, the committee meeting at which local government officials, whom would not normally have been there, atteneded. Local government officials who had very specific concerns like countering the panic mongering of the guy making the claims about his (ultimately wrong) predictions using Radon. Public officials, whom, according to the available evidence, railroaded the meeting according to their agendas.

This requires the assumption that he had the authority to talk to the press, either in this instance, or in general, and then there's the consideration that wrong predictions have previously led to legal action being taken, and before you remind me, yes, it failed, but that's not actually relevant. Or do you think people only take notice of the cases that succeed?

Yes, because somebody let local people with local agendas into a meeting they would not ordinarily have been a part of, and the list had been public for ten years by this point.

Shock!
Horror!
Not actually my argument!!!
Hence my comments about you, and Asguard, not having understood my actual argument, and needing to go back and re-read what I have said.

 

From what the prosecutor stated, that list was never made available to the public and local government at any time during those years. It was a list he had compiled.

Unless of course you have evidence contrary to what the prosecutors are claiming? And if you do, please post it.

Where exactly did you see this?

Can you please post that he had made that list public in the last 10 years?

And scientists and officials who went right along with it.

You make it seem as if the scientists were stupid.

So he is a senior staff member of the government, in charge of a large department and sitting on a risk management committee. He had the authority to speak. They had the authority to counter it. The scientist who stood there and let him say it all without correction had the authority to correct him.

Again, the scientists involved were not children, nor were they gagged or beaten into silence. At no time did they actually do their actual job and asses the risk to the area.. you know, since they are part of the risk management committee and that is their job. This is something even they have acknowledged. But no, here you are, in New Zealand, apparently saying they did their job.. when they admit they had not.

I understand how you have this innane need to say they are innocent. But they had a job and a responsibility and their failed. And yes, that does need to be investigated. And yes, they do have some questions from the survivors and family of the victims they need to answer. Just because they are scientists does not make them above the law and it certainly does not abstain them from the responsibility they took upon themselves when they agreed to sit on that committee.

Their representative, who at the time no one dared question his authority to speak on their behalf, made some comments, at least one scientist spoke to the media along with him and withheld information he had from the public. They admit themselves that the meeting meant to discuss the risk to the area did not even discuss said risk. Other seismologists who attended the meeting found it to be a "grotesque pantomine" because they were not doing their jobs.. Apparently, you, in NZ know more than they do.

Should they be made to answer for it? Yes.

Read the comments from the prosecutors. He had the list. It was not made public.

Hence the issue Trippy.

Sorry, your braying is tantamount to "wah.. they're trying scientists.. wah.. they expect scientists to be responsible for their actions and words.. wah"..

There's only so much handwringing I can take.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My previous post was actually to Tiassa. Not you. I stopped responding to you pages ago.

 

That's not the impression that what has been discussed here, or elsewhere for that matter gives, the impression that one gets is their issue is that it was not discussed at the meeting, certainly it's what you seem to have tried so hard to say, and repeated so many times.

If I can find it again, you know how hard finding the same information twice can be, especially on something that is generating as much media interest in this - certainly I've come across similar information for other towns in Italy that was published at the same time, and it's pretty straight forward "The buildings in red will collapse completely, the buildings in yellow will collapse partially, and the rest of them should be fine" or something very similar.

No, Bells, not stupid, well, no more stupid than you anyway. Are you stupid?

Assumption.

Assumption.

Bears no relationship to anything I've said.

Bullshit, according to the seismologists it was discussed, albeit breifly, however the meeting was railroaded by local, public officials, with local public agendas, whom would not have ordinarily been there, and cut short by de bernadinis who had a press conference to attend.

Not what has actually been said.

Speaking of inane /chortle.

And there we go again.

Which still bears no relation to anything I have actually said.

With-held what inforfmation from the public, Bells?

And yes, of course, it's so obvious to me now, that at a press conference held by de Bernadinis, organized by de Bernadinis, and for which de Bernadinis cut the meeting short that everybody was free to chip in.

Not what has been suggested in the media, Bells. Tell me something Bells, have you ever, in your entire life, been to a council meeting or a committee meeting at the local government level, especially ones that politicians are involved in?

/Guffaw

My point, which you have repeatedly failed, and apparently still fail, to understand is that the right people should be held accountable.

You mean the list that was already public, and had been for as much as ten years? The same list which local government had utterly failed to enforce any building codes over, because they don't have a budget for doing such things, because central government doesn't rate it a priorty? that list?

Braying? /chuckle
And once again, we come back to the basic point that you haven't understood what I have actually said.

Hand wringing, yes bells, that's what's going on here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As opposed to what? Wailing and gnashing of teeth because people died in an earthquake, and you don't think they should have, even though not once in the last 30 years, including the one occasion when we have actually managed to accurately predict a quake, have evacuations before an earthquake prevented deaths?

Really? No! Say it aint so!!!

Fancy that, in a public discussion, on a public forum, that someone might take the time to address a post that wasn't directed at them.

UNPRECEDENTED!

INCONCEIVABLE!!

 

I know, for example, that one of the families that survived was a New Zealand Family that were prosecuted by the Australian Authorities for doing the work the ultimately saved their lives.

Perhaps those people aggrieved by the Black Saturday Bushfires should take out a lawsuite against the (appropriate) authorities for preventing them from doing life saving work.