On Trial For Manslaughter For Failing to Predict Earthquake

As I have pointed out to you, it must be a dozen times now, there was only one person that said there was no risk and that advice was contrary to the advice he was given by the seismologists who were prosecuted along side him.

 

I've pointed this out several times in this thread. Asguard was told that over a year ago when I summarized the various arguments I had presented to him at that point to illustrate how his assertions were based on fallacies.

 

The problem was not with the science.

The science said that at the time there was nothing to suggest an increased likelyhood of a large earthquake.

One of the points that I have made in this thread is that it has been shown that the nature of the seismic activity changed between the press conference and the main shock. But that's not something that you'll see discussed in the media. Likewise, you also won't see it discussed in the media that as much as ten years before the earthquake, the local and central government knew:
- That Abbruzio was at higher risk of a large shake than had been previously anticipated.
- In the event of a large quake, l'Aquilla would be subjected to greater shaking than had been previously anticipated.
- In the event of a large quake, exactly which buildings would collapse.

And they chose to do nothing about any of this.

 

I feel compelled to point something out.

Bernado de Bernadinis, the individual who chose the unfortunate words at the press conference, has a degree in civil engineering, a PhD in fluid mechanics, and taught as a Professor in hydraulics between something like 1986 and 1999 (not 100% sure, the translation I have of his CV is a bit hard to follow in places).

Luciano Maiani, the head of the commission of grand risks, is a physicist, and co-authored the GIM Mechanism.
Mauro Dolce, the "Director of Assessment, prevention and mitigation of seismic risk", the other commission member who resigned, was a Professor or Earthquake and has been involved in teaching and research at University of Basilicata, from 1994 to 2006.

I must confess, however, that I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to in this instance. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

Apology not accepted, the post I linked to was one of two posts immediately above scheherazade's, and would have been visible to you at the time you posted as long as you have more than eight posts per page visible.

In Italy, a seismologist can be prosecuted for predicting an earthquake that fails to appear and Boscio, one of the seimologists that has been prosecuted had previously had charges brought against him for making just such a failed forecast. The prosecution may have failed, however, that in and of itself sets a strong legal imperative to remain silent. Again, I pointed all of this out last year.

He was out of his depth. He should have recognized that he was out of his depth and acted accordingly.

As I said to you last year, in Italy, what you're proposing he should have done could also have resulted in a criminal conviction.

Consider the following points:
-Boscio had previously predicted a high probability of a large shake in another area. This prediction was based on a statistical analysis.
-As a result of that prediction, an evacuation was performed.
-As a result of both of the above, charges were bought against Boscio for creating un-neccessary panic. Whether or not the charges were successful is beside the point.
-At the time of press conference, as far as Boscio knew, and could reasonably have known, the risk of a large earthquake was no larger than it had been nearly every other day for the past 330 off years since the last time l'Aquilla had been flattened by a similarly sized shake.

Consider, also, the following points, see if you, or anyone else can spot the absurdity:
-The charges were laid by a member of the public who lost relatives.
-The person laying the charges has said that if his family had been correctly informed of the risk of a large shake, they would have taken measures such as sleeping in their car.
-At the time of the press conference, the correct advice was "No higher risk than on any other day of your life" - or "Go about your lives normally".

Can you see it yet? Can you see why I think your position is absurd in the extreme?

Setting aside, for a moment, the pedantism involved in analysing the advice to the extent that has been done here?

As far as anybody could reasonably have known, at the time of the press conference, there was no elevated risk of a large shake. The risk of a large earthquake, at that time was the same as it had been 12 months ago or ten years ago. So the correct advice was "Don't panic, go about your lives normally, there's no more risk than usual", but, the charges have been laid by someone who lost loved ones because they went about their lives normally.

Does it make sense yet? Is it any clearer why this whole thing is a farce and an exercise in blame shifting?

 

The charges were laid by a member of the public that lost loved ones in the shake because they followed the only advice they could have been given - go about your lives normally.

 

This also was explained to Asguard by me last year. I have first hand experience of this, I work for a political organization in a science based role that sees me carrying out law enforcement.

 

There's another point that Asguard didn't get twelve months ago and still, apparently, hasn't grasped.

It's why every analogy he has posited is flawed to the point of being useless.

If I go to my Dr to get a Verucca burned of my foot, and I ask my Dr "Could I have a heart attack because of this procedure?" and the Dr says "No, you have no risk of a heart attack." So I go home, live my life normally for a week, and die of a heart attack.

Should my family then turn around and prosecute my Dr manslaughter because he failed to correctly inform me of the 0.1% background risk of having a heart attack?

And that's why every analogy presented so far by Asguard has been flawed to the point of being useless - because they deal with situations where there is an elevated risk of something happening, but, at the time of a press conference, there was no elevated risk, it was at what constitutes background levels in Abbruzio.

 

I've been saying that for the last twelve months, and nothing has happened in that time to change that opinion.

But it's more than that, Asguard has just perfectly, and I imaging unwittingly, illustrated the point that I was trying to make in the first place.

Observe.

Hold up Don Quixote, those are men of straw. Go back and re-read what I actually said.

If I go to my Dr to get a Verucca burned of my foot, and I ask my Dr "Could I have a heart attack because of this procedure?" and the Dr says "No, you have no risk of a heart attack." So I go home, live my life normally for a week, and die of a heart attack.

Should my family then turn around and prosecute my Dr manslaughter because he failed to correctly inform me of the 0.1% background risk of having a heart attack?​

The important part in that sentence is background risk. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer, but I thought it was fairly obvious.

Background risk is not risk as a result of the procedure, it's the risk I live with every day. In any given year I have a 0.1% risk of suffering a myocardial infarction before adjusting for factors such as diet and lifestyle. If I had meant "0.1% risk as a result of the procedure, I would have said that".

But that's the point that you're missing or ignoring, and why every analogy you have provided in this conversation, and every piece of case law you have provided is completely irrelevant, including this:

Because they all deal with scenarios where some event has occured that increases the risk of a subsequent event.

But that wasn't the case here. At the time of the press conference all of the information indicated that they were dealing with the same 0.002% risk of a large shake that they had dealt with every other week since 1315, when the last big shake flattened the city. That risk didn't change until something like 10 hours before the earthquake, when the nature of the earthquake swarm changed:
-The ratio of the magnitudes changed
-The geographic location of the earthquakes changed
-The frequency of the earthquakes changed.

However, at the time of the press conference, there was no greater risk than there had been any other day in nearly 700 years.

And I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.