Seismologists Tried for Manslaughter for Not Predicting Earthquake

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earthquake
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The trial of seven individuals, including six seismologists and a government official, for manslaughter related to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake highlights the complexities of earthquake prediction and accountability. The earthquake, which occurred on April 6, 2009, resulted in approximately 300 fatalities. Experts, including John Vidale from the University of Washington, assert that predicting earthquakes remains highly uncertain, and the seismologists did not have sufficient evidence to warrant public alarm prior to the event. The case raises significant questions about the legal implications of scientific uncertainty and the responsibilities of scientists in disaster preparedness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of earthquake prediction methodologies
  • Familiarity with the legal implications of scientific advice
  • Knowledge of seismic activity patterns and their interpretations
  • Awareness of historical earthquake impacts on urban planning
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the current state of earthquake prediction technologies and methodologies
  • Explore the legal frameworks surrounding scientific accountability in disaster scenarios
  • Investigate historical cases of earthquake-related legal actions and their outcomes
  • Study the principles of earthquake engineering and building codes in seismic zones
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for seismologists, legal professionals in science-related cases, urban planners, and disaster management officials seeking to understand the intersection of science, law, and public safety in the context of natural disasters.

  • #31
Evo said:
This is beyond absurd
I'll say.

I thought it was an April fool's joke when I opened the thread
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
. . . particularly with regard to information the committee may have had about which buildings were more likely to crumble.
Well, unless they are structural engineers, they are not responsible for the buildings, or the building codes, or the crappy construction. All the seismologist can say, is that we've had earthquakes, and we will have more. They cannot predict future earthquakes with high levels of certainty.
 
  • #33
They want someone to blame so that they won't feel guilty about their decisions. But this is outrageous. Good point about the seismologists not being engineers.
 
  • #34
Astronuc said:
Well, unless they are structural engineers, they are not responsible for the buildings, or the building codes, or the crappy construction. All the seismologist can say, is that we've had earthquakes, and we will have more. They cannot predict future earthquakes with high levels of certainty.

Excellent point,

When China had earthquake they went after structural engineers .. here, I wonder if all this trail is an idea coming from structural engineers :biggrin:
 
  • #35
All the seismologist can say, is that we've had earthquakes, and we will have more.
Of course I realize in the context the above quote is correct but it makes it sound like a third grade dropout could be a seismologist. Haha. Best laugh I've had on here for a while.
 
  • #36
Averagesupernova said:
Of course I realize in the context the above quote is correct but it makes it sound like a third grade dropout could be a seismologist. Haha. Best laugh I've had on here for a while.

I think their role is very important for long term policies but I don't understand why the heck they were doing meeting minutes and what is the purpose of those.
 
  • #37
The minutes of a meeting are like notes of what was discussed during the meeting--if that is the context in which it was used.