Talk:2009 L'Aquila earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

thank you for helping me with my work. Your information is truly unmatchable. thank you. From:Mihir Singh TO:Wikipedia

Indictments not for failure to predict[edit]

Under Prior_warning_controversy I have tagged the dead link for the "indictments" bit. I suggest replacing it with

  • Hall, Stephen S. (15 September 2011), "At Fault?" (PDF), Nature, 477: 264—269, Bibcode:2011Natur.477..264H, doi:10.1038/477264a, which explains that the indictments were for providing "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information."
  • Cartlidge, Edwin (3 June 2011), "Quake Experts to Be Tried For Manslaughter" (PDF), Science, 332: :1135—1136, Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1135C may also be of interest.
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

The latest section ("Prosecutions") ends with a quote that reinforces the idea that these prosecutions (now convictions) were for failure to predict the earthquake. In this regard it seems that the BBC (along with other tabloids) is not reliable, as other sources clearly state that the prosecution was for downplaying the risk. We need to not propagate this error. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're arguing semantics - The media obviously oversimplifies things, failure to predict a major quake at a location in a given time period, is semantically (I think) the same as saying there is less than 50% chance of a major quake at a location in a given time period, and saying anything even approaching that would definitely not have been something the seismologists were able to say (unless I miss my mark by a very large margin). After the earthquake swarm in march near L'aquila (according to one of the references in the article) they could at best have predicted a "major" (damaging) quake might happen at some point in the future but as the chances were less than 2% that there might even be one (based on whether previous quake swarms had been followed within a reasonable time period by a "major" quake) then saying 'there is a less than 3% chance of a "major" quake within a year (or whatever time period they used to work out the 2% chance info) would actually have been overegging the risk but would still actually have sounded like a 'hey folks don't worry about it' type message. Even inflating the risk to say there is a 5% chance this year, would still be predicting no damaging quake this year at this spot. EdwardLane (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the scientists have been convicted is that Guido Bertolaso (chief of the civil Protection) has been eavesdropped by the police (for other reasons). You can read here the conversation, and understand why they have been convicted. Basically, Bertolaso asked the scientists to cheat the population, and they did it. Alex2006 (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not standard procedure to show extreme caution concerning potential disasters, particularly ones that are really impossible to predict? As I'd understood it, some disasters resulted in greater casualties because of panic and alarm; as a result, in an effort to avoid a dangerous panic concerning something that probably won't happen, the typical would be to emphasize that there is no immediate danger. For that matter, there's also a risk of people ignoring serious, certain warnings on account of poor track records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I have seen comments that at one time (1970s?) some people thought a prediction would cause mass panic, etc. But that seems to have no basis other than watching too many "B" grade Godzilla movies; experience (e.g., see Earthquake prediction#Browning) shows otherwise.
  Ed, with all due respect, it's not "a matter of semantics". Of course "the media" — which in common usage seems to mean the popular media, not any scientific "media" — simplifies things. They also misinterpret, and blow things out of proportion. The reports I listed above (from Nature and Science) describe matters pretty well. And what it seems to come down to is this: it's not that the scientists failed to predict the quake, but that public officials, ostensibly relying on "the scientists", said (implicitly "predicted") there would be no earthquake, and therefore no need to take precautions. Do see the recent story by Cartlidge. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that the scientific advice for any area that has a number of small tremors over the course of a few months is that everyone should flee the area until the tremors stop, which would often mean leaving for months at a time, just in case they are the precursors to a major earthquake? If you do not believe this is the case, then these convictions are nonsense, because otherwise the scientists will correctly say that even if they raise the risk of an earthquake, it is still many times more likely a major earthquake will still not happen, so the vast majority of time the warning will be incorrect, and thus the politicians and media saying an earthquake was not likely were correct in saying so right up until the earthquake happened. That is just the consequence of having no reliable way of predicting earthquakes, and anyone that goes to jail is going to jail for not being able to predict earthquakes, and the misdirection about it being about "misleading the public" is just political bullshit. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  No, that is NOT what I am saying; you have misinterpreted my words. You really should read the articles I cited above, esp. the most recent one. To quote some of the relevant parts:

After the group adjourned, two members gave a press conference, accompanied by local officials. On that occasion, prosecutors say, they gave L'Aquila's inhabitants the mistaken impression that they had nothing to fear, and as a result, some people who would otherwise have fled their homes during subsequent tremors stayed inside....

  And:

Prosecutors didn't charge commission members with failing to predict the earthquake but with conducting a hasty, superficial risk assessment and presenting incomplete, falsely reassuring findings to the public. [emphasis added]

  And:

Meanwhile, a recorded telephone conversation made public halfway through the trial has suggested that the commission was convened with the explicit goal of reassuring the public and raised the question of whether the scientists were used—or allowed themselves to be used—to bring calm to a jittery town. [emphasis added]

  If there was any "political bullshit" it would be the public officials co-opting the scientists. Nor was the only other option (as you imply) "that everyone should flee the area". The viable, customary option, adopted by many, is to sleep outside immediately following any significant shocks of a possibly premonitory nature. (Which you would know if you had read the recommended sources.)
  What this really comes down to is not that the scientists failed to make a prediction, but that the public officials effectively did make a prediction: that there would not be a major earthquake. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Just curious, but do we have a written report by the court as to why they have been convicted? A primary source would be better than the secondary sources that are listed. --204.39.194.3 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.nature.com/news/shock-and-law-1.11643 it says "Under Italian law, judge Marco Billi has up to three months to reveal his reasoning", so it could take a while for the whole story to come out. --James (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning whether panic may occur or not, take a look at major disasters that are somewhat more predictable, such as volcanic eruptions or particularly hurricanes. Scientists and other officials take care to downplay the risk or otherwise stop people from leaving all at once, because this has in the past resulted in numerous people trapped on crowded freeways and other exit routes when the disaster hit. With predictable events, there's a definite need to get the population to safe locations in time, but emphasizing danger and allowing a hurried evacuation can make the situation even more dangerous. In the case of unpredictable events like earthquakes, raising an alarm can become particularly hazardous. The pressures involved can't be properly measured beforehand, so it's near impossible to say exactly where a quake will occur, when, or even what locations will be worst affected. If the scientists predict the wrong location, people could evacuate to a more dangerous spot, or find themselves trapped in locations that are difficult to reach. Not to mention that if the earthquake doesn't happen immediately this could lead to an even greater lack of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone should flee the area"? This is not an all-or-nothing situation. No one flees California, and earthquakes on a level with Aquila's happen there nearly once a year. With known risk, old (non earthquake proof) buildings can be made safe -- qv. San Francisco's city hall.
Look more carefully at the ruling. The scientists were not convicted of failing to predict the earthquake per se. They, along with the government head, were convicted of downplaying the risk to effectively zero. In that fault zone, with that pattern of small earthquakes, any competant geologist knows that the risk is not only not zero, it is significantly higher than zero. Read the WP article again, and take a look at exactly how many past major earthquakes Aquila has experienced -- and when the last one was. The tectonic stress has been building up since then.
I could wish this political collusion and extreme downplaying were an exception -- but I have seen the same attitude among the majority of scientists in other contexts as well, some political, some not. One single clear statement could have avoided much, including that ruling -- but for some reason, in these kinds of public situations, very few scientists are willing to say clearly that there is a risk, it is not zero, it is significant, and it is rising. In anything. (With one single exception -- and that one took possibly too many decades to get enough force behind it.)
But this may be partly the public's fault as well. Scientists are not rewarded for accurately identifying risk. They are rewarded for certainty. Certainty brings in the grant money. Certainty opens the government positions. If they could have said with certainty that an earthquake was coming, even that VP would have reacted differently -- but they could not, and so the certainty had to be as strong as possible in the other direction -- because the public refuses to hear anything else. That is where the responsibility of government should step in -- but governments are elected by the public and public officials are appointed by the elected government. These ended up as scapegoats, but not for the reason most people think. - Tenebris 03:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you're too cynical regarding scientists, and would suggest (respectfully!) even uninformed (like being rewarded for "certainty"). Be that is it may, I think we really do not want politicians (I believe that is the aspect of "government" you have in mind) intruding on the science. That seems to be the lesson we might learn from the Italians. Compare that with how the NEPEC has handled several cases. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I speak of what I have seen first-hand. You might consider that it is inherent to the profession -- social responsibility actually interferes with objectivity and scientific method, never mind advancement. And no, I most definitely do not mean politicians -- but I do mean leadership, real leadership, in the hidden things that have no stockholder- or publicity-definable profit but nevertheless make a real difference. Whose job should risk identification and management be? Who should do something about risk on a society-wide scale? Some things cannot be left to individuals and private enterprise -- consider for example a city with tightly-packed wooden buildings where a private fire department only puts out fires for its subscribers. - Tenebris 01:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.158 (talk)
I most certainly agree that "some things cannot be left to individuals and private enterprise". I do not know what "hidden things" you refer to, but management of society-wide problems is precisely one of the reasons why governments are instituted. (That some particular governments are incompetent or corrupt is a different matter.) As to what you have "seen first-hand" — if you do not mean the politicians then I infer you are speaking of scientists not being "rewarded for accurately identifying risk". Sorry, my first-hand observations say otherwise, that social responsibility does not (generally?) interfere with objectivity and scientific method. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I again reiterate that scientists have good reason to avoid raising alarm without a level of certainty close to unobtainable in the case of earthquakes, and to lean far on the conservative side even if the chances are high enough. In many disasters, one of the worst places to be is on the road, moving to a hopefully safer location. They had no clue whether something would happen or not because swarms like that are very common, and the standard and appropriate practice is to avoid making a big fuss. On the one hand, they could find people trying to reach a "safer" location crowding hopeful shelters and roads to and from places, and ending up in a more dangerous situation than they'd have been in had they simply stayed home. On the other hand, if they raise a fuss every time they think there's a danger, since statistically they'll likely be wrong more often than not, people will start to disregard their warnings altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are running on some disproven notions (which reiteration does not cure). In particular, the "safer" locations for the most part did NOT involve crowded shelters or hazardous, but merely being out of doors; it was a matter of sleeping in one's car/camper/trailer/tent. Your estimation of the situation for the residents and the scientists is an unfounded fantasy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This looks to be a very well balanced article on the issues surrounding the trial. EdwardLane (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, I don't see Guido Bertolaso, who seems to have been the person insisting that the public should be reassured, among the defendants. Anyone know why? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bertolaso's responsibilities came to light only after the trial had started. It is likely there will be another trial on this issue for him (he's already under trial for many other events, unrelated to L'Aquila).
This, however, is just speculation.
--Lou Crazy (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IASPEI press release[edit]

Interesting related press release. EdwardLane (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter to Giorgio Napolitano early in the trial[edit]

Can anyone find a link to that open letter to the Italian president which was signed by 5,000 scientists? It would be a useful reference here, and I must admit some curiosity about the exact wording. - Tenebris 02:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.158 (talk)

Never mind, I found it. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/media/0630italy_letter.pdf And that letter, itself written and signed by many of the highest-ranked European scientists, did spin the trial as "the scientists failed to alert the population of L'Aquila of an impending earthquake." So who was the first to spin, media or scientists? - Tenebris 03:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.158 (talk)

What you linked to is actually the letter from Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and signed only by him. As to your question, these two views don't map to "scientists" versus "media". E.g, in the 20 Oct. 2011 issue of Nature both views are expressed. Also, I think it's not a matter of spin (deliberate interpretation) as just people being careless in their understanding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The International Seismic Safety Organization sent a letter to president Napolitano, too, about misleading information in media, falsely claiming there was a trial against science; here it is: [1]
--Lou Crazy (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Luminous phenomena" as fringe.[edit]

The "Luminous phenomena" seems to be coatracking of the WP:FRINGE theory of "earthquake lights". (And is oddly juxtaposed under "Effects" with "Homeless camps" and "Building standards".) I point out that the "International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection", convened particularly to review the L'Aquila quake, found no convincing evidence of any earthquake precursors, and two reports by one author do not make the implied claim non-fringe. While I could see a section on reports of associated phenomena, including just this one would suggest special treatment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture appears twice[edit]

This article contains the identical picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emergenza_Terremoto_Abruzzo_2009_-_12.jpg, in two positions. One needs to be removed. 72.94.100.60 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal?[edit]

Have the perverse sentences been appealed? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Prior warning (2)[edit]

I have revised the first sentence of "Prior warning" as it is quite dubious that Giuliani actually predicted the quake: all that can be properly said is that he claimed to have predicted the quake. (This is discussed in detail at Earthquake_prediction#2009: L.27Aquila.2C Italy .28Giuliani.29, and the authoritative result [from the ICEF] is not predicted.) I have also deleted the sentence that he had been invited by a prestigious organization to present his work. It seems he only presented a poster, which is an open "invitation", not at all like an "invited" paper in a journal. The unqualified statement implied he was being recognized with some special honor, which was certainly not the case. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The death toll[edit]

I read this article (http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/protagonisti/2011/04/06/visualizza_new.html_1526558643.html) it says:

"The victims are 309 because all is also considered Giorgia Giugno, who should have been born that day and who, instead, died together with her mother, Giovanna"

So, I think it's better to add this annotation Te2ha (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why that particular webpage uses 309, but I think that we need to go with the majority of reliable sources (such as this very detailed analysis) that use 308 as the number. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you Te2ha (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake&oldid=1196546189"