Here's a follow-up on the email forwarded by Rick Wunderman a few days ago concerning the indictment of seven scientists and government officials by an Italian court for their failure to predict the severity and timing of last year's L'Aquila earthquake. Many scientific organizations including the American Geophysical Union have now called on their membership to sign petitions protesting this unprecedented intervention of a judicial system in a science policy matter. I'm attaching below (Attachment #1) the AGU's announcement from earlier today about the situation. While there appears to be general consensus among the global scientific community about the impropriety of the Italian court's actions, Volcano Listserv has received a few emails from Italian and American geophysicists SUPPORTING the indictments. In each case, the authors disagree with the specific methods used for hazard assessment by the Italian defendants, and based on this disagreement, say that the scientists should indeed be held liable. While it is certainly their right to make such assertions, this minority view misses the chilling and anti-scientific implications of the Italian court's actions. Nonetheless, I am attaching one of these messages for your information at the end of this email (Attachment #2). Please note that Volcano Listserv in no way supports this point of view. As I indicated earlier, we do not intend to host further debate on this issue, unless some significant new developments come to light. Jonathan Fink Founder and Editor of Volcano Listserv Arizona State University _________________________________________________ Attachment #1 from the American Geophysical Union Scientists May Face Manslaughter Charges After Earthquake AGU Science Policy Alert 10-18: 22 June 2010 Seven Italian scientists and government officials are under investigation on charges of manslaughter for failure to warn the city of L'Aquila, Italy, before an earthquake hit last year, killing hundreds. The scientists and officials under investigation, who are employees of the National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) and the Civil Protection Department, took part in a meeting of the Major Risks Committee on 31 March 2009. At the meeting, the committee told L'Aquila city officials that "just because a small series of quakes has been observed [in L'Aquila] there is no reason to suggest that the sequence of low-magnitude tremors are a precursor to a major event," which was deemed "improbable, although not impossible." However, on 6 April 2009, the city was struck by a Mw 6.3 earthquake that killed 308 people. The criminal charges against these scientists and officials are unfounded. Despite decades of scientific research in Italy and in the rest of the world, it is not yet possible to accurately and consistently predict the timing, location, and magnitude of earthquakes before they occur. It is thus incorrect to assume that the L'Aquila earthquake should have been predicted. The charges may also harm international efforts to understand natural disasters and mitigate associated risk, because risk of litigation will discourage scientists and officials from advising their government or even working in the field of seismology and seismic risk assessment. Science is making critical contributions to the understanding and mitigation of earthquake hazards in Italy and the world. Examples include providing tools such as seismic risk maps to determine areas of greatest vulnerability, improving seismic wave analysis so that we can better understand how the Earth moves during an earthquake, and increasing our capabilities for seismic monitoring and for providing rapid information on earthquake location and severity for early warning systems and first responders. It is in the best interest of all countries to reduce earthquake vulnerability through awareness, preparation, and mitigation. Local government officials should work with scientists and engineers to prepare for seismic hazards in that region. To truly mitigate earthquake risk, governments must utilize the long-term hazard assessment, post-earthquake Shake Maps, and other tools created by seismologists to educate residents and inform sound infrastructure policy. Communities can increase their earthquake preparedness through implementation of building codes based on these long-term hazard assessments, retrofitting older buildings, improving emergency response, and increasing public awareness of the hazard and individual responsibility during and after these tragic events. In support of the Italian scientists and officials, the INGV has written an open letter to the President of the Republic of Italy. The letter is open for public signatures and, as of 21 June 2010, has 5,028 signatories from around the world, many of whom are geoscientists. Please sign the letter and pass this information on to your colleagues if you support these seven scientists and officials and their right to conduct best scientific practices without risk of persecution. _________________________________________________ Attachment #2 sent from Dr. Liana Mualchin, Retired Caltrans Chief Seismologist, to Dr. Takashi Imamura of UNESCO's Global Task Force on Building Codes (GTFBC) Dear Dr. IMAMURA & colleagues, By now, it should be very clear how distinguished organizations like EERI, IAEE, SSA, and perhaps more national or international organizations may join them, asked that we protest against so called "indictment" of some Italian scientists. What went wrong here is simply "not predicting earthquakes and not warning people" but not addressing perhaps a more important issue that earthquake hazard may be underestimated by using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in the L'Aquila earthquake region. If I heard it right, these particular scientists are strong proponents of PSHA with their apparent underestimated earthquake hazards in the L'Aquila earthquake region. In a very general sense, we may say that hazard estimation is also a sort of prediction for engineering applications. This critical seismic hazard estimates by the "indicted" scientists is missing in the appeal letter proposed by the above organizations. Therefore, it must be discussed first before signing their letters. What I have received from the SSA President on the same matter credited seismic hazard estimates by using PSHA only and no mention at all by using deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) or neo-DSHA. To this I wrote an email to the President with feedback from colleagues, that the use of DSHA and PSHA should now be open for discussion for good science and engineering. In fact, results from DSHA are more realistic and continued to be used in California. In contrast, results from PSHA have been found to be greatly underestimated in recent damaging earthquakes worldwide. Moreover, several recent papers questioned the validity of PSHA from theory, results, and observations. I believe that the above organizations gradually supported PSHA that was initiated and actively promoted by EERI in California where I have been fortunate enough to invest my entire career in this field. What we need today is co-operation but with independent and objective thinking -- not simply following PSHA just because these organizations have endorsed. I strongly feel that what our distinguished organizations have been doing in this particular matter (seismic hazard assessment approach) is not at all satisfactory and we can do it better! Until DSHA or NDSHA is also mentioned by these organizations, I urge all of you not to sign the appeal letter. Otherwise, you are indirectly supporting underestimate seismic hazards which is not helping public safety. It is an excellent opportunity to address this critical issue that has not been done for years so that public safety will be better served globally. Sincerely, Liana Mualchin Retired Caltrans Chief Seismologist ************************** ============================================================== To unsubscribe from the volcano list, send the message: signoff volcano to: listserv@xxxxxxx, or write to: volcano-request@xxxxxxxx To contribute to the volcano list, send your message to: volcano@xxxxxxxx Please do not send attachments. ==============================================================
