
Italy Orders Jail Terms for 7 Who Didn’t Warn of Deadly Earthquake - japhyr
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/italy-convicts-7-for-failure-to-warn-of-quake.html
======
HerrMonnezza
(Mostly an edited repost of a comment I made in yesterday's discussion on the
same topic.)

A blog post on Nature.com about a month ago explains better why they were on
trial, which is _not_ the misprediction that an earthquake was imminent:

    
    
      The prosecution’s closing arguments [...] made it clear that
      the scientists are not accused of failing to predict the
      earthquake. “Even six-year old kids know that earthquakes can not be
      predicted,” he said. “The goal of the meeting was very different:
      the scientists were supposed to evaluate whether the seismic
      sequence could be considered a precursor event, to assess what
      damages had already happened at that point, to discuss how to
      mitigate risks.” Picuti said the panel members did not fulfill these
      commitments, and that their risk analysis was “flawed, inadequate,
      negligent and deceptive”, resulting in wrong information being given
      to citizens.
    

Source: [http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-
fo...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/porsecution-asks-for-four-year-
sentence-in-italian-seismology-trial.html)

If you can read Italian, there are a few online newspapers have comprehensive
explanations about the trial matter:

[1]: [http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/548491/terremoto-
laqu...](http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/548491/terremoto-laquila-la-
sentenza-la-commissione-grandi-rischi-e-colpevole/)

[2]:
[http://newrassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/getPDFartico...](http://newrassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/getPDFarticolo.asp?currentArticle=1M75AD)

[3]: [http://www.cattivamaestra.it/2012/10/sentenza-processo-
aquil...](http://www.cattivamaestra.it/2012/10/sentenza-processo-aquila-
grandi-rischi.html)

------
corin_
Discussion at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4683657> (84 comments)

------
gagabity
This story actually seems to be more complex than most western media is
reporting it, apparently the scientists issued false "everything is ok"
messages possibly for political reasons, against what their data actually
showed. At least that's what I picked up from the Reddit discussion.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
You're right, they held a big conference to reassure people that everything is
OK and they should remain in their houses. One week later the big one came and
some of those who listened to the scientists died.

Not as outrageous as what the media is reporting, but probably more
interesting from the point of view of a scientist's responsibility.

~~~
TallGuyShort
In fairness to the scientists, you know as well as I do that they could have
stated the risk of a big earthquake and nobody would have listened. It happens
in high-risk disaster areas all the time. Sure, they should be held
accountable for making false statements for political or economic gain, but
saying "those who listened to the scientists died" isn't fair.

------
jasonlingx
So now every scientist is just going to sound the alarm every time. How does
that help anything?

~~~
smutticus
Or more likely every scientist is going to be extremely cautious and cover
their ass when making public statements. That's a lot different than sounding
the alarm every time. I get the feeling that if these scientists had not been
so absolute in their vision of safety they would not have been convicted.

~~~
viraptor
If covering ass means saying something like "I predict <5% change of X
happening" instead of saying it's not going to happen... why not. Maybe
publishing more raw data for others instead of just a 2-word summary would be
a good solution in general.

------
callmeed
I recall hearing of Italy having a poor legal/justice system. Can anyone
comment on this verdict as it relates to Italy? Would these scientists be
found guilty in Germany, Spain, Greece, etc.?

~~~
napolux
Well, the sentence is not really about "earthquake prediction", but about the
fact that some hours before the big earthquake alarms from the INGV (the
italian institute for earthquake monitoring, one of the best in the world)
were ignored.

Of course nobody can predict earthquakes, but in L'Aquila's quake there were
strong evidence of "something happening", and they were ignored: that's why
they were found guilty.

P.s. I'm from Italy

~~~
danmaz74
There were no "big earthquake alarms from the INGV", that's the whole point.
If you have sources that say the contrary, I would be interested in reading
them.

------
darkarmani
<5 years later> Italy wonders why there are no leading seismic researchers in
the country.

------
wilhow
So when do we start slapping lawsuits on failing to predict floods and
hurricanes?

~~~
dromidas
Why stop there? We just have to look around and find someone knowledgeable
about something that just happened and is bad. Then you can sue them for not
reporting that it was going to happen.

I think I'm going to promptly forget everything I know about computers before
I get sued by a local store for not warning them that a virus is in the wild.

