Italian seismologists charged with manslaughter for not foreseeing L'Aquila earthquake

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Not in the least. The building codes are what resulted in a higher number of deaths than would be expected from a 6.8 earthquake. Rather than own up to it, they chose to blame the people who presented what evidence was telling them

Whether the building codes were faulty is not relevant to whether these scientists were also at fault for their own roles. Bringing up building codes is an attenpt at distraction.

Where, exactly, were the seismologists negligent here? Where are the other world’s seismologists saying “holy FUCK! what were these INEPT IDIOTS thinking saying the risk of earthquake was no higher or lower than normal? These readings SCREAM earthquake!!!” You aren’t seeing that because what they showed was not wrong!

I’m not saying they were negligent. All I’m saying is that that writer says that the accusations against them were not merely that they failed to correctly predict the earthquake, but that they were criminally negligent (or worse).

Whether the evidence justified that verdict is something I have no opinion on.

[Jenaroph]

Aaaaannnd who couldn’t have seen this coming:

“We won’t advise the state again.”

The head of Italy’s disaster evaluation body has quit in protest against the conviction of seven of his colleagues for failing to warn people of a deadly earthquake in 2009. Scientists all over the world have expressed outrage at the verdict.

Luciano Maiani, the former director of CERN, and the head of the Serious Risks Commission, tendered his resignation alongside his deputy and other senior officials.

“The situation created by yesterday’s sentence… is incompatible with running the commission’s work in a calm and efficient manner and with its role of giving high level advice to the organs of the state,” said Maiani’s statement, which was posted on the agency’s official website.

[dimmy_derko]

@Malthus

Why do I have a vision of these scientists hiding in dark alleys, making reassuring seismic predictions to helpless passers-by?

I can envision a documentary sometime in the future — “Follow us now as we enter the seedy world of the Italian seismologist…”

[eclectic_wench]

‘Psst, buddy! Hey, buddy, over here! Wanna buy a seismological prediction?’

And Capt Ridley’s Shooting Party is absolutely right: no way in hell is Ireland anywhere *near *as badly governed as Italy. I live in Ireland, I know exactly what a godawful mess it is, and it’s not in the same universe. Ireland is fucked up, small-minded and corrupt; Italy is FUCKING FULL-ON SCREAMING INSANE.

[Sitnam]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’m not saying they were negligent. All I’m saying is that that writer says that the accusations against them were not merely that they failed to correctly predict the earthquake, but that they were criminally negligent (or worse).

How is it possible a seismologist performing in the capacity of a seismologist CAN be criminally negligent?

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Whether the evidence justified that verdict is something I have no opinion on.

Surely you have an opinion on that to even bring this up, much less devil’s advocate this guys point of view.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Sitnam

How is it possible a seismologist performing in the capacity of a seismologist CAN be criminally negligent?

I am not familiar with Italian law. But it would make sense if they deliberately or negligently understated the likelihood of an earthquake, especially if due to ulterior motives, that it might be criminal.

Surely you have an opinion on that to even bring this up, much less devil’s advocate this guys point of view.

No, I brought it up because the verdict - and even the charges - seemed completely outrageous, and I happened to notice this guy who had another perspective, which I think is worth considering.

In any event, the distinction between the charges and the verdict should be kept clear.

What this source is claiming is that the charges are not for simply failing to predict the earthquake but for deliberately or negligently understating it. If true, that means that the mere fact of the charges is not as outrageous as would be the case otherwise. But even if true, that does not mean that these scientists were guilty as charged. IOW it could be that they were charged with professional negligence but were factually innocent of professional negligence. To know the answer to the latter question you have to have followed the evidence as presented in court, and I did not. That’s what I have no opinion on (although I’m frankly not sure of the first issue either, as above).