L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists found guilty of manslaughter

Post by HerrMonnezza » Thu, Oct 25, 2012, 8:25 AM UTC

Uchikoma wrote: post #93

HerrMonnezza wrote: post #74

A blog post [0] about a month ago explains better why they are on trial: 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 pr…

What you quote says: 1. "They were not accused of failing to predict the earthquake" 2. "whether the seismic sequence could be considered a precursor event"

My understanding is that "precursor event" has a specific meaning in seismology, i.e., sentence 2. is more restrictive than 1.

But I'm no expert, so I'll be grateful if someone with the knowledge could clarify.

Post by mturmon » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 3:14 AM UTC

Uchikoma wrote: post #91

mturmon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a story with a good background on the events. It's more complex than you would guess: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html In particular, at least one member of the civil defense bureaucracy went out of his way to say there was a consensus that there was no danger (even though there was not such a strong consensus): "Immediately after that meeting, De Bernardinis and Barberi, acting presid…

Your "at least" wording shows bias. There was one.

Not really. I worded it that way because I was not sure if other civil defense bureaucrats might have made pronouncements. The article mentions only the one, but it does not claim to be comprehensive.

Re: L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists found guilty of manslaughter

Re: L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists found guilty of manslaughter