Italian Geologists Charged with Manslaughter

[BigH]

McCoy:

Can you give us any background and detail? I saw a headline in NCE (but can't get story as I don't subscribe) about geologists scientists and public officials (7 in total) charged with manslaughter on the deaths of 299 in the town of L'Aquila.

Howard

p.s. I bought a DVD of John Coltrane concerts in Germany back in 1960 and 1961; damn, that McCoy Tyner is amazing!

 

[Ron]

Howard,
Here's what I found through Google....

http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-06-16/predicting:quake/

Seems a bit absurd to me.

Ron

 

[BigH]

I agree - the Italians - who are appear to be famous for this kind of action (sorry McCoy)- are playing to the politics - and I understand that they had a large demonstration in L'Aquila yesterday.

I might draw one's attention to the link below. Brandl points out on pages 3 and 4:

" . . . Failures can occur in spite of detailed ground investigation, sophisticated calculation, site supervisioin and monitoring - they are inevitable because of the complex nature of ground and groundwater. Nevertheless, the public opinion is very critical towrards this branch of engineering, and "building scandal" or "construction scandal" is term easily used by the mass media for headlines. Moreover, engineers, as viewed by the public, should exclude every risk (even if unidentifiable). On the other hand, the public has more or less got used to traffic accidents killing thousands of people per month worldwide. There is a great difference in the evaluation of car accidents on the one hand and other accidents on the other. The car has obviously become toady's "idol" or "golden calf" which consequently involves thepublic acceptance of high risks to life and health, while accidents e.g., caused by a failure in the road structure, by uneven pavement on expressways, or by a bridge collapse (e.g., due to scouring) are condemned as almost criminal acts.

Consequently, it should be emphasized that a so-called 100% safety cannot be obtained in many cases of geotechnical engineering (e.g. landslides, earthquakes). And this must be accepted by
the public
politicians and other decision makers,
and by lawyers

. . . We crave for clear answers, but ground is an uncertain material. Hence, it is one of the greatest challenges in geotechnis to come up with a design or an answer when no clear-cut, ideal solution exists."

The bold is my take - for even our own licensing boards are of this opinion. We live in a society of "no risk" like "zero tolerance" where a 6-year old cub scout is sent to a "problem class" for 45 days for bringing to school his cub scout utensils for camping. Pretty soon, doctors may be subjected (by the national health overseers) to sanctions for not being able to predict a person's death on time - and hence his national health care treatment lasted 2 months longer than had been allocated for.

Sorry for the - I just shake my head at obvious losses of common sense. - Do see the link below - a good paper.

http://www.issmge.org/getfile.ashx?cid=78813&cc=3&refid=1

(the above should get you to the link - if not, google the following: "Brandl DFI Ethical and Philosophical Thoughts" and it is the first listing

 

[dgillette]

From a coworker -

Surprising outcome to be sure, but the circumstances were also unusual. From Tom Jordan and Lucy Jones in this month's SRL:

"In this situation, few seismologists would be comfortable with a categorical forecast of no increase in the seismic hazard, which is the way many interpreted the DPC and INGV statements. It is true that foreshocks cannot be discriminated a priori from background seismicity. Worldwide, less than 10 percent of earthquakes are followed by something larger within 10 kilometers and three days; less than half of the large earthquakes have such foreshocks. In Italy, seismic swarms that do not include large earthquakes are much more common than those that turn out to be foreshocks. Nevertheless, owing to the statistics of clustering, most seismologists would agree that the short-term probability of a large earthquake in the L'Aquila region was higher in the weeks before the 2009 mainshock than in a typical, quiescent week. A forecast consistent with this seismological understanding was not communicated to the public, and the need for a better narrative was consequently filled by amateur predictions rather than authoritative information."

http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/extract/81/4/571

 

[BigH]

David: But, in any event, can one predict "when" the next big one comes? In reading the articles, one geologist did predict the big one coming and was told to "go home" basically. How long can a region wait for it to arrive? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 1 decade? We are still waiting for California to sever are we not? cheers - and thanks for the link above.

 

[dgillette]

Note the very guarded wording: "...Few seismologists would be comfortable with a categorical forecast of no increase in the seismic hazard, which is the way many interpreted the DPC and INGV statements," which is rather different from an indictment for manslaughter.

There is a huge difference between what one scientist can tell another scientist or engineer about historic frequencies for clusters being foreshocks of big ones, and what a scientist can explain to elected officials without either touching off a panic or being laughed out of town, either before hand or two weeks later when nothing happened. (It would be a real cluster alright, but in another sense of the word.)

How much evidence/probability of [PHA>0.25 g] do you need to evacuate the schools and the old masonry churches and move people out their older masonry houses into FEMA-style trailers (which should actually be quite resistant to earthquake loading since they were designed to be towed at 110 km/hr)? Once you evacuate, how long do you keep people out before you let them back in? (Presumably, you get them out of the trailers before the next tornado.)

BTW, how do put boldface type in your posts?

 

[BigH]

David - before the text you want to boldface type . You can also use for italic and for underline. At the end of the text you want to highlight you use . Can also use colours. If you "Preview Post" before you submit, you can see these instructions. cheers

 

[dgillette]

Ha! It read what you were trying to show as an instruction, so I couldn't figure out how to end it.

Test: bbb uuu

 

[BigH]

don't forge the / in the last one - and you have to close [] like parentheses.

 

[dgillette]

Now I get it.

 

[BigH]

... as only a Ph.D would (I have a sister I have to contend with on that mark, too!)

 

[Mccoy]

It's interesting to realize the news hit the media outside Italy.

a few months ago a lawyer filed suit against the 7 members of the 'great risks' panel for manslaughter, on behalf of the dead ones' relatives.

No one spoke about that except very few people.

Last month the DA accepted the suit and officially opened an investigation. All Hell broke loose.

Now, this is my recount, having been working in l'Aquila for the 15 years before the quake.

Foreshocks started a few months before the main event. 3-4 months I reckon with ever increasing frequency and intensity.

L'aquila was a well known seismic area, active faults all-around, an article published in the BSS 1994 or 1995 by three Italian seismologists described l'Aquila as the single most hazardous area in Italy as far as an imminent earthquake was concerned.

The return time for a large earthquake was about 250 years, and that time was due. The city and sorrounding villages have a large number of old masonry houses, and every one knows in all previous large earthquakes such buildings went invariably down.

Now, in such a context, the panel members insisted that there was no danger, that everyone had to stay calm, that such foreshocks were in fact benign because 'stresses were being gradually released'.
Such an utter nonsense prevailed. One week before the main event the mayor called for an official meeting. Here one of the panel members said that there was absolutely no danger, nothing would happen, people would be safe in their houses. The panel wrote a document which was more balanced, that is they said nothing.
For the news, the man sued because of unduly warning (of earthquake) is not a geologist, is just an hobbist.
The only geologist who wrote that a magnitude 7 earthquake was expected is myself, and that is recorded in the board of the forum of the Italian geologists, march 17th, such a post has also been read aloud in a TV program in front of some members of the panel. I was expecting the quake for years and the time was sure ripe. It was weaker than I foresaw though.

Now the main point of the original lawsuit was that, if an earthquake canno be foreseen, how the panel experts could foresee the negative event and be so sure about the non-occurance? How could they take the responsibility for declaring officially such a scientific oxymoron? So people were given a false sense of security, they might have run away and not returned in their homes when a couple of foreshocks hit the city the night of the main event.

So this is the reason for the lawsuit. Some witnesses even say that police officers were sent to convince people to get back home the night of the main event (they were out in the streets because of the foreshocks). This is the right time to see if that's the truth.

Then, the DA gave different motivation, that is the experts had to foresee the quake and evacuate town. I do not know why, probably he missed the point of the original lawsuit, may be he wanted to be generic and not specific, but now everyone is believing that is the reason for the manslaughter charge and sure that's misleading.

Again, the main point for the charge would be: it was OK not to evacuate town, but how the heck could you be so sure the event would not occur and reassure in such a strong way the population? In such a way you went against the basics of seismology, that is you cannot foresee events (and non-events) and you may have convinced people to stay home whereas if not for your bad advise they might have chosen to fly away and save their life.

 

[BigH]

McCoy - thanks for your insight - I knew that you worked in the area. My question, then, is the timing. It was indicated by geologists that an earthquake was, by probability, due "soon". As dgillette indicated - how soon is soon and do you keep people "out" for months and months - then finally say "Okay." - then the big one comes. It seems to me that the fault is not that the "area" didn't know that earthquakes were a real risk - we all know that California is at risk - at nearly any time -- but that the city council, regardless of "imminent or soon" was negligent in that they didn't condemn the masonry structures and order that such structures be brought up to code. In most countries (sorry - developed), if structures are known to be dangerous, they are condemned, the people removed and the structures. This didn't happen - so the risk was always there whether the seismic event was to happen "soon" or "later" or . . . Similarly, housing in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan - consisting of mortared bricks - they always turn to rubble and as a result many people lose their lives. But a country like Italy, if such structures exist (and of course they do), one would think that the government would condemn the buildings (which of course, is the path to not being re-elected). This is similar to why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not part of the recent Financial Bill just passed. We saw this issue with Katrina in New Orleans. Forgetting the engineering of the levees and that they were for a Level 4 - not a level 5 hurricane (sorry if I've misnumbered it) - the US government under George Bush did try to persuade the mayor of the city of New Orleans to start evacuating the city several days before the event and the mayor (who had jurisdiction because he or the governor did not "call in" the Feds) did not listen - and as a result, when it hit, the city was full.

This issue points out that there are risks - and one takes them whether one knows or not. I see the point, though, that "members of the board" went far out of their way to take the popular path - it's okay . . . . but as citizens perhaps when the politician says "left" we should all take a hard look and look "right."

Again - my friend - many thanks for your update - super well worth reading and digesting - I'd give you a star (but not for this forum) so I'll give you a "hand." Hope you have the opportunity to meet up with BigHarvey and see a bit of the Real McCoy! Try to get a video, eh???!

 

[Mccoy]

BigH, I realize that you got it right being as far away as Indonesia. Your insight is probably better than mine!!


The part about the city council and negligence and being re-elected is much about it.

Estate in downtown l'Aquila (we call 'the historical hub') was financially very valuable, little room for buildings, high prices. So whoever would dare to say those buildings were worth nothing in the event of a quake would meet exceptional resistance, from politicians and from the owners alike.
People went on with their everyday life, totally oblivious of the active fault underneath their valuable houses, stressed to near-rupture. This is human nature.

The fact that this is a widespread situation in Italy is worrying. In this aspect I concur we are not much better off than the Haitians with their houses of cards.

Positive side of it: geotechnical and geophysical investigation is enjoying a boom in Italy, especially in the area to be rebuilt. As we say it, the cattle is secured in the pen only after the wolf has eaten in abundance.

Indeed, I would just love to get to Toulose and listen to Mccoy and meet BigHarvey, I can't get there on my own though. If I go with family is all right, otherwise my wife will think I got the opportunity of Mccoy's concert to secretly meet with a mistress, no kidding!!

She may be convinced if I'll tell I'll talk business with BigHarvey but will want some proof of a project or something.

Typical of Italian women, they may be very devoted but at the same time very jealous as well!

Bigharvey, don't you have a good project at hand, I just need some hard copies of foundations, soil profiles and similar!!

 

[dgillette]

Sorry, but McCoy reminded me of this:

One day, an artist, an accountant, and an engineer were discussing their lives outside of their work, and the talk eventually came around to whether it is better to have a wife or a mistress.

The artist says "You need a mistress to create great art. The mystery, the intrigue, the uncertainty, they all come through in your creativity and your selection of paint colors."

The accountant replies "No, no, no. You need to have a wife - someone who will keep your life stable and calm and comfortable, so you can stay focused on consistently accurate accounting."

The engineer says "You need both."

"Both?"

"Yeah, both. The wife will think you are with the mistress and the mistress will think you are with the wife, so you can go to the office and get some work done."

 

[BigH]

Good one Dave

 

[Mccoy]

Ah Ah Ah, reminiscent of a friend electronic engineer, he told me in Bologna, the oldest college town in Italy, graffitis went with all manners of jokes about future engineers studying whereas all other students had parties, drinks and women.

The truth is that just after graduation the engineers got called by companies whereas almost all other graduates had to sweat a lot to find employment.

But really, with the load of work I have now, I wonder how my wife can even conceive I'd be able to find the time for a mistress, maybe having gained the power of ubiquitousness like some of the celebrated saints and sages of all religions.

Wives can have a way to overestimate your capabilities!

 

[BigH]

. . . and underestimate your income!

 

[Mccoy]

Sure, it looks like it's never enough!