On Trial For Manslaughter For Failing to Predict Earthquake

prop 65? :shrug:
as far as i am concerned, the govt agency is looking after the interests of the citizens. i do understand the need for the occasional rant but......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed. We are getting exactly what we ask for, unfortunately.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=049zIbLXZH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFqOtYJAsn0

trial adjourned for a month.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Usher:
Order Order!
Clear the Thread.
Trial will resume in one month.

 

Saw this from NASA last night:

"As of 9:30 p.m. EDT Sept. 22, 2011, the orbit of UARS was 110 mi by 115 mi (175 km by 185 km). Re-entry is possible sometime during the afternoon or early evening of Sept. 23, Eastern Daylight Time. The satellite will not be passing over North America during that time period."

Whew! The scientists told us there would be no risk! The public will sleep easy now that there is no threat.

This morning:

"As of 10:30 a.m. EDT on Sept. 23, 2011, the orbit of UARS was 100 miles by 105 miles (160 km by 170 km). Re-entry is expected late Friday, Sept. 23, or early Saturday, Sept. 24, Eastern Daylight Time. Solar activity is no longer the major factor in the satellite’s rate of descent. The satellite’s orientation or configuration apparently has changed, and that is now slowing its descent. There is a low probability any debris that survives re-entry will land in the United States, but the possibility cannot be discounted ."

WHAT? They said it wouldn't pass over North America during re-entry, and the public believed them! And now it might hit us! Call the lawyers!

 

Oh, so it was OK if it killed a few thousand Mexicans.........



In the UK, they have told us not to worry too.
If I look up in the sky and see some flaming lump of metal the size of a double decker bus heading for my house, I won't be concerned in the least.
I believe the scientists, you see.

 

why "unfortunately"? you do not want to be warned of the presence of toxic substances in stuff?

 

Just my two cents worth:

If the earthquake had not happened, they would not be on trial for manslaughter. Because the earthquake happened and people died, they are on trial. Ergo, they are on trial because of the earthquake deaths, with which responsibility they are being charged.

I seriously doubt they considered that an earthquake was imminent, and therefore did not release their preliminary information, not wanting to be alarmist; particularly if no earthquake happened, they would have been ridiculed for being alarmist.

I believe this is entirely a civil matter regarding whether they did their job properly. It might be that they should be fired, etc., but it does not appear appropriate for criminal charges at this stage of our understanding of earthquake predictions.

 

No, I do. However, if EVERY SINGLE BUILDING in California has the same warning on it (which is close to being the case) then the warning is useless.

Let's look at the following example. Let's say you are choosing which pharmacy in a mall to go into. Both have the legally-required prop 65 warning. One has the warning because they sell aspirin, which is on the list of prop 65 substances. The second one has problems with hexavalent chromium; the previous tenant was an electroplater and they had a lot of spills. Again, the prop 65 warning covers that.

Do you feel that seeing those two signs has adequately warned you of the presence of toxic substances, and that you can now make an informed choice as to which store to go into?

 

Yes, too many lawyers with too much time on their hands sitting in legislative offices passing blanket rules that are oftentimes more harmful than helpful. I know, let's pass a law against that.

 

I'm imagining a "Miranda" speech given to every newborn baby...

...and be also advised your time here on earth may suddenly come to an end WITHOUT OFFICIAL WARNING AND AT NO FAULT OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IN THE COVER YER ASS ACT PAGE 46 SEC b, in the event of an earthquake, volcanic eruption.....

 

The plain fact is had they said there is a 90% chance of a major earthquake in the next 24 hours, not even one person would have done anything different than what they were doing and no lives would have been saved. Even when a government tries to force people to evacuate, some people just won't go. People that live in earth quack areas know the score and by the simple fact that they still live there, they are accepting the risk.

 

The satellite that is crashing to earth.
Might it land on the new World Trade Centre building?

Scientists say that you are less likely to get directly hit by a piece if you are short and thin.
Tall fat people should be especially careful in the next day or so.

 

Captain.. Think you clicked on wrong thread.. Unless you are trying to avoid being sued by giving a fair warning.. The Sky is falling!

 

Wrong thread. Yes sort of.
But shouldn't be a problem.
The manslaughter case is in cold storage for a month.

The current side issue is whether Nasa should be sued for saying not to worry about the bus-sized doom-satellite hurtling from space.

In fact, they seem to be saying "Don't worry, no Americans are going to be killed".
Yesterday they gave a 4 hour time slot for the fiery ball of molten fury to reach the planet's surface. It failed to oblige.
Which is a bit worrying.

If it lands on the World Trade Centre site, now at 80 stories, people are going to be very angry.

One of these days, one of these satellites is not going to land harmlessly in the sea, as they all seem to have done to present time.

If it lands somewhere in the USA,
someone will have to pay big.

If it lands anywhere else, "Who Cares?", says Nasa, reading between the lines.

 

it wont land in the US, it is going to land in NSW or Queensland, AGAIN, just like skylab

 

I won't be drawn in.
I'm saying nothing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you think they have some way of maneuvering this space junk so that it doesn't fall on the USA?

 

depends, they manage to manuver the space captuals in where they land, i would assume there is still some fuel kept in reserve for brining down out of date satellites. If not thats just pure irresponcibility

 

Yes, it would be stupid, wouldn't it.
If the US got a rocket to the moon in 1969, couldn't they prolong the life of a dying satellite so that it didn't end up crashing into USA at the end of its life.
And what more convenient place than Australia.
A friendly country, with wide empty spaces, where the wreckage can be recovered.

Hey, we've just invented a conspiracy theory no-one else has thought of!
Mmmh......
Maybe just you. Me I'm doubtful. Let me make it plain CIA, I'm doubtful.
Rubbish, you are talking rubbish!

If you die mysteriously in the next few days you may be right.
And if it crashes in Australia, I hope your life insurance is up to date.

 

Fundamental quesiton and proposition

Mod Hat — Fundamental question and proposition

We do realize, of course, that this thread has gotten absolutely silly, right?

I mean, I thought I understood the whole satellite decay bit. You know, like a satire of what stupid people do with science; the whole, "A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous", thing.

But apparently I'm wrong. If that's the purpose, the discussion is straying from even that point. It's easier to just conclude that I'm wrong.

Bottom line: Things are getting silly in here.

Part of me says, "Well done." Insofar as I might have a dog in the general fight, silliness helps make my point.

If, however, this silliness is unintentional, perhaps I might raise a proposition?

With the trial in adjournment until the first of October, perhaps we might start digging up some relevant information:

• Applicable Laws: What laws apply? Frequently, a charge or verdict we disagree with might otherwise be justified according to statutory conditions. Whether or not we agree with the ethics and morality of those conditions is its own question, but we cannot embark even on that discussion until we know what we're dealing with.

• Proportion: What, exactly, can the people rightly expect of the Commission according to statutory conditions and tradition?

• Comprehension: There seem to be plenty who would sympathize with the claim except for a perception that the people of L'Aquila apparently don't understand anything about science. See Billvon's excellent, pointed post at #145.

• Science: How are risks assessed? The commission was aware, at least according to Franco Barberi, of construction quality control risks and other extraordinary dangers pertaining to earthquakes in antiquarian Italy. Just how accurate was their data? How often had they considered it? That is, how familiar were they with the numbers?

• Context: What, exactly, was the context of the statements in question? For instance, did superstition, scuttlebutt, and inaccurate prediction such as Mr. Giuliani's create a specific demand in public discourse, and can that demand be accounted for in understanding the context of the statements in question?​

All of this is generally arguable; in some instances factually, although I see some necessity of anecdote in considering how the people of L'Aquila understand science.

My point, though, and perhaps my appeal to this community as a moderator, is that we have an opportunity to witness something rather quite revolutionary in real time. Despite the rhetoric, there are aspects of science being put on trial here. To state it in the most neutral terms possible, scientists might well be about to receive a clarification of what is expected of them.

This is breathtaking. And it is also occurring in the twenty-first century, the internet era.

I think we can actually get ahead of this thing if we try. That's the silver lining. That part, at least, is really, really cool. We can actually get ahead of this thing.

Even if one's first reaction to the headline is, "What the hell is going on?" it's a fine point of departure for inquiry. This case is extraordinary to the point that the generalization of the question is actually accurate.

What do you think? Are we capable of answering?