seismologist convicted manslaughter

[KhainiWest]

They were charged for pocketing money instead of doing proper research to prevent the murder of 19 people.

http://www.inabruzzo.com/memoria_finale_13_luglio.pdf

Oh wow. hang him capt'n

[Locked]

Oh wow. hang him capt'n

I just noticed I used the term murder.

lol.

Wrong word but hopefully you know what I mean.

[JoeTang]

Okay, since none of you except Alex are apparently able to produce an properly informed opinion

• 6 Seismologists and 1 government official are charged with manslaughter
• They were tasked to evaluate the risk and damage if a major earthquake were to occur
• i.e. what buildings have the highest risk of collapse, what to do if an earthquake occurs
• They failed to properly inform the government and people of the risks and damages
• They did inform a meeting that the possibility of a large scale earthquake is not 0
• They did not inform the meeting of what to do in the case of a large scale earthquake
• They (the government official specifically) informed the public in a press conference there was no threat
• The government official said smaller tremors release energy reducing the possibility of a large scale earthquake, which is incorrect
• They were not asked to predict an earthquake
• The case was tried with a single judge
• Convictions are not definitive without one level of appeal in Italy

Yes, the sentence appears to be unfair, but the fact that there are so many of you arguing they're being charged because they couldn't predict an earthquake is as ignorant as the judge trying them.

[KhainiWest]

Okay, since none of you except Alex are apparently able to produce an properly informed opinion

• 6 Seismologists and 1 government official are charged with manslaughter
• They were tasked to evaluate the risk and damage if a major earthquake were to occur
• i.e. what buildings have the highest risk of collapse, what to do if an earthquake occurs
• They failed to properly inform the government and people of the risks and damages
• They did inform a meeting that the possibility of a large scale earthquake is not 0
• They did not inform the meeting of what to do in the case of a large scale earthquake
• They (the government official specifically) informed the public in a press conference there was no threat
• The government official said smaller tremors release energy reducing the possibility of a large scale earthquake, which is incorrect
• They were not asked to predict an earthquake
• The case was tried with a single judge
• Convictions are not definitive without one level of appeal in Italy

Yes, the sentence appears to be unfair, but the fact that there are so many of you arguing they're being charged because they couldn't predict an earthquake is as ignorant as the judge trying them.

Source? The articles I've read contradict this

EDIT: It seem's theres multiple varients of what actually happened. I guess the face value note at the start was warrented

[JoeTang]

Source? The articles I've read contradict this

EDIT: It seem's theres multiple varients of what actually happened. I guess the face value note at the start was warrented

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1109...l/477264a.html

The very source the "LA Times" article quotes from.

I just noticed I used the term murder.

lol.

Wrong word but hopefully you know what I mean.

Yes, Danny, we all know you mean they brutally killed them in cold blood, as the victims prayed to science to be saved from the earthquakes, and then looted their bodies.

[KhainiWest]

www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/477264a.html

The very source the "LA Times" article quotes from.

I'll take your word for it, my computer is blocking it so I can't see the details. I just cross referenced it with some UK news agencies

[Worthyness]

oh good I got it right then- people were paid to do a job and they just uber failed at their job and as government tends to do, they miscommunicated with the inhabitants and that resulted in deaths.

[Locked]

I'll take your word for it, my computer is blocking it so I can't see the details. I just cross referenced it with some UK news agencies

That article got posted on reddit and everyone was saying it was bullpomegranate. They responded with what I said earlier.

[Curtiss]

Okay, since none of you except Alex are apparently able to produce an properly informed opinion

• 6 Seismologists and 1 government official are charged with manslaughter
• They were tasked to evaluate the risk and damage if a major earthquake were to occur
• i.e. what buildings have the highest risk of collapse, what to do if an earthquake occurs
• They failed to properly inform the government and people of the risks and damages
• They did inform a meeting that the possibility of a large scale earthquake is not 0
• They did not inform the meeting of what to do in the case of a large scale earthquake
• They (the government official specifically) informed the public in a press conference there was no threat
• The government official said smaller tremors release energy reducing the possibility of a large scale earthquake, which is incorrect
• They were not asked to predict an earthquake
• The case was tried with a single judge
• Convictions are not definitive without one level of appeal in Italy

Yes, the sentence appears to be unfair, but the fact that there are so many of you arguing they're being charged because they couldn't predict an earthquake is as ignorant as the judge trying them.

>_> Irresponsibility is one part of it as mentioned in the quotations from Science but honestly, I can't really imagine that the lesson taken away would be "Let's be more responsible lest we get charged like those people next time" so much as "Give them what they want since we can't be charged for being public nuisances if we issue warnings". Which is my main point, I get that they are not asked to predict earthquakes and that they are being charged because they failed in their duty but negligence is still far more appropriate charge than manslaughter. The latter more or less encourages the idea that scientists ought to be too wary to save their skins next time because let's face it, if the government screwup is part of why the scientists are being tried in the first place there's absolutely no guarantee that another trial like this would end up in the scientists being burned at the stake even if they did their best because risk is still risk.

Also, I actually think trials like this tend to be a waste of time because the amount of time going over he said she said could be used to look into actually improving the buildings. Unless that happens along with new guidelines on the ethical responsibility of assessing potential dangers to the public from natural disasters, I can't say this is really going to do much.

[Coogi]

Maybe these people that are fracking should be convicted too...

[ShinkuDragon]

according to a newspaper over here, they received six years of prison as punishment for -whatever-

[Stereo]

• The government official said smaller tremors release energy reducing the possibility of a large scale earthquake, which is incorrect

I'm not sure what makes this incorrect - with tectonic plate fault earthquakes, the small tremors generally release energy that could otherwise contribute to a larger quake. Obviously they still happen sometimes, and it's stupid to completely fail to prepare, but there's no 'early warning' via smaller tremors, which is what the alternative would imply.

[hadriel]

Hmm... I'm reading Nature now, and it said that, when asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of the tremors, the scientists responded by saying that the earthquake risk was clearly raised but that it was not possible to offer a detailed prediction. Then subsequently in the press conference held by the authorities, the authorities said that the minor shocks did not increase the risk of a major one.

What I just read is quite damning, but being a 3rd hand source I have my reservations about the exact facts, also because it seems to contradict what was said here. But since they're appealing (which takes ages and they're free until appeals are over, assuming they are indeed guilty after appeals) we shall have to wait and see what happens.

Hadriel

[Alex123123]

@Stereo

You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by "lubricating" the fault with water
FICTION: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, and 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high- pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake.

It's less about incorrect and more about it being insignificant. The way that statement was used was to calm down the people as if the cluster of quakes that was occurring would reduce the possibility of a big event occurring by a significant margin or stalling it for a significant amount of time. Yes, your (hypothetical) 800 quakes of magnitude 3 released some energy, but did it reduce the possibility of a big one occurring? No. Was the energy liberated significant? Not really.

[Curtiss]

@Stereo



It's less about incorrect and more about it being insignificant. The way that statement was used was to calm down the people as if the cluster of quakes that was occurring would reduce the possibility of a big event occurring by a significant margin or stalling it for a significant amount of time. Yes, your (hypothetical) 800 quakes of magnitude 3 released some energy, but did it reduce the possibility of a big one occurring? No. Was the energy liberated significant? Not really.

So basically they overestimated the effects of the previous cluster of quakes on preventing a major earthquake and also incorrectly concluded from it that there wasn't significant danger to the residents, even though the area has basically zero fortification? I certainly can't argue with that being misleading since that's a gross misinterpretation of data.