Scientists condemned for l'Aquilla deaths
From: dobran@xxxxxxxxxxx
****************************************************************************************
Scientists condemned for l’Aquilla deaths
Judge Marco Billi of the court of Aquilla passed on 22 October 2012 a
guilty sentence on the former members of Commissione Grandi Rischi (the
commission) of Italy (Franco Barberi, president of the commission;
Bernardo De Bernadinis, vice president of the technical sector of
Protezione Civile; Enzo Boschi, president of Istituto Nazionale di
Geofisica e Vulcanologia; Giulio Selvaggi, director of Centro Nazionale
Terremoti; Gian Michele Calvi, director of Eurocentre; Claudio Eva,
professor of physics at the University of Genoa; Mauro Dolce, director of
the seismic risk office of Protezione Cicvile) for their failure to issue
adequate preventive recommendations on continuing earthquakes to the
residents of Aquilla, following the 4 magnitude earthquake on 30 March
2012 and prior to the 6 magnitude earthquake on 6 April 2009 that
destroyed the city and other 56 surrounding communities, caused 309
deaths, and produced more than 2000 injuries.
On the evening of 30 March 2009 the head of Italian Protezione Civile
(Civil Protection), Guido Bertolaso, called the regional head of civil
protection Daniela Stati and explained that his vice Bernardo De
Bernadinis will call her to arrange for the commission members to have
the next day a meeting in Aquilla, after the 4 magnitude earthquake
during the day caused the evacuations of many buildings in the city and
caused an alarm among the population. (This telephone interception is
available on the internet and was obtained during the police surveillance
on the occasion of a G8 meeting.) Bertolaso explained that he will not
participate but that the purpose of the meeting is to “silent immediately
the imbeciles and placate the situation” (zittire subito qualsiasi
imbecile e placare la situazione) and to have the “luminaries” present
for a “media operation” (operazione mediatica), such that “they who are
the super experts of earthquakes will say: it is a normal situation,
phenomena that are happening … it is better to have 100 earthquakes of
magnitude 4 on the Richter scale rather than silence because 100
earthquakes serve to liberate the energy and there will never be a large
earthquake that causes injuries … this [meeting] is not because we are
frightened and preoccupied but because we want to tranquilize the people
and instead of having I or you talk about this let’s have the super
experts in the field of seismology do this” (e’ piu’ un’operazione
mediatica, hai capito? Cosi’ loro, che sono i massimi esperti di
terremoti, diranno: e’ una situazione normale, sono fenomeni che si
verificano … meglio che ci siano 100 scosse di 4 scala Richter piuttosto
che il silenzio perche’ 100 scosse servono a liberare energia e non ci
sara’ mai la scossa che fa male, hai capito? … che non e’ perche’ siamo
spaventati e preoccupati ma e’ perche’ vogliamo tranquillizzare la gente
… e invece di parlare io e te facciamo parlare i massimi scienziati nel
campo della sismologia).
Following the commission’s meeting on 31 March 2009 the spokesman for the
commission and vice head of Protezione Civile Bernado De Bernadinis
issued the statement that “it is a normal phenomenology for the area from
the standpoint of seismic phenomena” (si colloca in una fenomenologia
senz’altro normale dal punto di vista dei fenomeni sismici che si aspetta
in questa tipologia di territorio). From the minutes of the commission’s
meeting (also available on the internet) we have statements such as: it
is the objective of the meeting to “make an objective evaluation of
current earthquakes as it pertains to what can be predicted” and “discuss
and issue indications on the diffuse alarms among the population”, “it is
extremely difficult to predict the temporal evolution of
earthquakes”, “it is improbable in the near future to have a large
earthquake like that of 17 March, even if it cannot be excluded
absolutely”, “the simple observation of many small earthquakes does not
constitute a precursory phenomenon” (la semplice osservazione di molti
piccoli terremoti non costituisce fenomeno precursore), “it is not
possible to predict earthquakes”, “the emissions of Radon have not been
identified to serve as the precursor for earthquakes”, “today there are
no instruments available for prediction and any prediction has no
scientific validity” (oggi non ci sono strumenti per fare previsioni e
qualunque previsione non ha fondamento scientifico). The meeting on 31
March 2009 adjourned after 1 hour of deliberations.
Those who are taking sides against the sentence of the court of Aquilla
assume that the Commissione Grandi Rischi members were condemned for not
being able to predict the earthquakes and lack the familiarity of other
issues that led the judge Marco Billi to condemn these individuals
for “approximate evaluation of seismic risk, generic and inefficient in
relation to the activities of the commission and its duties of prevention
and foresightedness of seismic risk” (una valutazione del rischio sismico
approssimativa, generica e inefficace in relazione alla attività della
commissione e ai doveri di prevenzione e previsione del rischio sismico)
and because after its meeting the same commission provided the population
with “imprecise and contradictory information of the seismic hazard that
is fruitless for the pursuit of tutelage activities for the population”
(informazioni imprecise, incomplete e contraddittorie sulla pericolosità
dell’attività sismica, vanificando le attività di tutella della
popolazione). The judge sentenced each member of the former Commissione
Grandi Rischi to 6 years in jail, perpetual exclusion from public office,
and payment of damages.
The sentence has nothing to do with predicting earthquakes, but about the
failure of a group of scientists to recommend caution following the
seismic events from January to March 2009. The Italian public depended on
Commissione Grandi Rischi for an objective evaluation of seismic (and
other natural) risk and interpreted its evaluation of 31 March 2009 as a
certainty for the non-occurrence of large earthquakes. The seismic swarms
of 2 and 3 magnitude earthquakes from January through March and the 4
magnitude earthquake on 30 March 2009 should have been serious enough for
the commission to recommend to the local authorities to maintain an
alarm, which could have prevented some tragedies on April 9. The
commission (through De Bernandinis) issued instead the communication that
only tranquilized the people, as the head of Protezione Civile wanted.
The commission in effect predicted that no large earthquake will occur
and thus induced people to stay at home. This is a negligence that is
punishable by law.
The scientific community should not pronounce judgments without knowing
all the facts used by judge Billi to come with the verdict. Let the
Aquilla prosecutors and judges do their jobs because many of us lack
their competences. By pronouncing open supports for a politicized group
of scientists without knowing all the facts is reckless, and certainly
contrary to the spirit of science. Those in the scientific community
who are condemning the judge’s ruling without knowing his full
motivations are producing more damage to the science than the condemned
individuals. Without the law we would know nothing of the commission’s
methods used to manage the risk and of the abuse of power. Imagine what
could have happened if instead in Aquilla we had a similar situation in
the Vesuvius area and what will happen if we continue relying on an
unreliable evacuation plan for this area. Even those with minimum
scientific abilities know that the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
cannot be predicted (with certainty), and thus no one needs a commission
that says this, or worse there is no need for a commission of “eminent”
scientists that reassures the population to stay tranquil while the earth
is noticeably and continuously shaking and it is unpredictable whether or
not this may degenerate into something much more serious.
We must keep in perspective that 309 people died in Aquilla because of a
flawed risk communication. Judge Billi reminded us that in the absence of
hard scientific facts about a hazard the risk managers should simply
follow the precautionary principle. Let me conclude with some of the
words of Dacia Maraini (“Tra I sette dell’Aquilla non c’era Galileo”
(Among the seven of Aquilla there was no Galileo), Corriere della Sera,
28 October 2012).
“Let us recall that all of Italy is at seismic risk, that the prevention
costs less than the reparation, that the controls must be more rigorous
and certain, and above all that the experts must be autonomous from
politics. Galilei ceded, but he risked his life. What have our seven
sages risked? Perhaps only a reprimand from those who controlled them at
that moment. Was it worth loosing the self-respect to avoid this
reprimand? (Ricordiamo che tutta l’Italia e’ un Paese a rischio sismico,
che la prevenzione costa meno della riparazione, che i controlli debbono
essere piu’ rigorosi e certi, e soprattutto che gli esperti debbono
essere autonomi dalla politica. Galilei ha ceduto, ma rischiava la vita.
Cosa rischiavano i nostri sette savi? Forse solo un malumore di chi li
comandava in quel momento. E valeva la pena di perdere il rispetto di se’
per questo?).
Flavio Dobran, Ph.D.
GVES, Napoli, Italy
www.westnet.com/~dobran
29 October 2012
==============================================================
Volcano Listserv is a collaborative venture among Arizona State University (ASU), Portland State University (PSU), the Global Volcanism Program (GVP) of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, and the International Association for Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI).
ASU - http://www.asu.edu/ PSU - http://pdx.edu/ GVP - http://www.volcano.si.edu/ IAVCEI - http://www.iavcei.org/
To unsubscribe from the volcano list, send the message: signoff volcano to: listserv@xxxxxxx, or write to: volcano-request@xxxxxxx.
To contribute to the volcano list, send your message to: volcano@xxxxxxx. Please do not send attachments.
==============================================================
