about the L'Aquila trial & verdict.
From: "Dario TEDESCO" <DarioT@xxxxxxxxx>
****************************************************************************************
Dear All,
It is
sometimes disappointing reading about this "scientists against
scientists" messages, on this forum as well on newspaper, as it happened
to me recently.
"REASONS" why
we arrived to the traumatic l'Aquila trial, have been by several
Italian scientists dangerously twisted or if you like more, "freely
interpreted" (more and more times) in order to get some consensus among
Italians authorities and population and colleagues abroad.
I believe
that this discussion since the trial was decided should have been
brought to a complete different level and done in a different way.
The change of
the tone of the last messages and of the subject concerned, shows that
IT is now clear, at least it should, that this trial was not about "NOT
TO HAVE FORECASTED THE EARTHQUAKE" but more simply, to have clearly
stated, that a big one, was absolutely unlikely. Unfortunately, all the
information given about this "unlikely" were/are judged dubious and none
of them was scientifically sounding.
Too many
"ingredients" of this story are not clear. I would call this, as a
typical ITALIAN story, where none does exactly what he should be
supposed to do and sticking strictly with his mandate, from top to down
in the hierachy.
Mandates and rules exist, but it seems that none cares.
Obviously we
are talking AFTER the event, when all seem much easier and clearer.
Nevertheless, as explained after, something different should have been
done, and it was not even difficult.
Let me spend a couple of lines on this.
(i) All
starts from the news that a technicien from INFN-Italian National
Instiute of Nuclear Physics (if I am not wrong) released to the media
(why he was talking to the media ???). He informed that a shock of high M
could be forecasted sometime soon in Abruzzo (the region of l'Aquila).
Someone says, with a dubious metodology. The Radon might be a very good
parameter, BUT it depends where you collect data, how you collect and
interpretate data and how you associate your data to the whole other
bunch of data set existing. Then there is the interpretation, and for
what I know it was, to be fair, quite wrong, siting the big one in a
totally different area. One more thing to be added is that with such a
strong seismic swarm and relative shacking, it is very possible to find
increasing Radon content at the surface. But this was depending on what
was already happening and what it was going to happen ? Probably this is
the first flow of the story. However, it should have been taken, with
so many felt earthquakes since four months, as a ringing bell, a
warning, that should have been used by the Grandi Rischi board to be
extremely cautious.
One more
thing to explain, is that a forecast (if it is possible) needs to answer
to three key questions in a very accurate way : WHEN, WHERE and HOW or
HOW STRONG. We could discuss about this for months. This is certainly
true and sometime possible for volcanoes, this is certainly NOT TRUE,
and NOT POSSIBLE, at least at the moment, for eartquakes.
(ii) There
was also some scientific articles, in particular one extremely
interesting printed in 1995, which clearly shed light of the
seismological situation in that specific area: "Forecasting Where Larger
Earthquakes Are Likely To Occur in Italy in the Near Future" (the link
is bellow).
http://www.6aprile.it/conoscere-i-terremoti/articoli-tecnici/2012/10/29/ecco-lo-studio-di-boschi-del-1995-entro-il-2015-forte-terremoto-a-laquila.html
http://www.6aprile.it/conoscere-i-terremoti/articoli-tecnici/2012/10/29/ecco-lo-studio-di-boschi-del-1995-entro-il-2015-forte-terremoto-a-laquila.html
This article
should have suggested, at least in my opinion, to be a bit wary in the
response to give to the civil defence and ultimately to the population
of l'Aquila. How to forget such an important piece of evidence ?
(iii) The
last incredible flow is related to the work done in the very recent
past by the National Civil Defence about building codes and stability in
l'Aquila. All local authorities had it for several years and it should
have been easy to understand where and which buildings were at risk. All
the downtown of l'Aquila was perfectly mapped and all information were
there. Those buildings that had been quoted as "problematic" in
that book just crumbled during the earthquake killing people that could
have been saved if such a work would have been implemented and above all
made it public. Why the civil defence and local authorities did not
inform the population about such a study ? Why they did not bring it to
that meeting ? I believe that this fact is even more negligent than the
doubtful or not correct information given by some of the commettee.
(iv) Finally
as all, or at least most, Italian stories, as several readers have
already highlighted, politicians came in, trying and succeeding to stop
(it is not clear, whatever the explanation I have red, to understand
why) all rumours about possible earthquake activity.
At this
point, to be honest, being in that context, where everything seemed so
easy; conclusions already decided (may be by others) before even
conveying in l'Aquila and with such a pressure, most of us would have,
unfortunately done the same.
THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM I THINK.
Now, I am not
focusing about the trial itself, although, I am shocked and surprised
at the same time, about the sentence and the fact that all those being
in the "infamous meeting of March 30, 2009" have been similarly judged
and convicted. This, franckly speaking, it does not seem to be fair or
at least not clear to me (reading the sentence will be very important).
Responsabilities were different among those participating to that
meeting.
The outcome
of all this discussion see two real losers, I am sorry to say that, but
at society's eyes "science and scientists" become much less reliable
than what they were thought to be and credibility is at a ground level.
One possible
solution, someone says, it is to bring clear rules and regulations and
to define them correctly in order to have new strategies of
communication. This is fine obviously, but for what I know, rules are
already there and should be simply applied fairly. If scientists decide
to play more roles at the same time, this is a real problem, and the
risk of conveying wrong messages or simply not to be understood, grows
accordingly.
It is also
true that communication is a real art, and most scientists (I am
speaking only for those I see in TV and in Italy) have no idea what
comunication is all about. I am learning this after a three years
project in Africa (Congo) where communication (mainly by radio
broadcasting) is everything about the work we do, forecasting natural
hazards. It is the only way to comunicate, to explain increasing hazard
awareness and prepardness.
Obviously "we can also prey",
hoping that such an event will not or even never, occur, but this is a
bit less scientific :-). One more thing is that if we work in this field
we need to take full responsability for what we do and/or we say.
I also
believe, that the same problem or a similar one, already tragically
happened in the past (most of you have probably forgotten it), when in
1997 the Col Fiorito earthquake occurred (it is best known as the Assisi
Earthquake).
An official decided, after interpreting the available data, to lift the ban to enter in the Assisi Cathedral to assess stability and damages occurred at one of most beautiful and famous monument in Italy (the interview should be on the net). The reason to lift the ban was that the big earthquake was thought to have already occurred and only aftershocks were forecasted. Unfortunately the big one stroke the day after while 2 officials from the Ministery and 2 Franciscan brothers were within the Cathedral. All died when the cieling collapsed.
An official decided, after interpreting the available data, to lift the ban to enter in the Assisi Cathedral to assess stability and damages occurred at one of most beautiful and famous monument in Italy (the interview should be on the net). The reason to lift the ban was that the big earthquake was thought to have already occurred and only aftershocks were forecasted. Unfortunately the big one stroke the day after while 2 officials from the Ministery and 2 Franciscan brothers were within the Cathedral. All died when the cieling collapsed.
How do we
call it this accident ? Science limits ? Ignorance ? Wrong or bad
Communication ? Innaccuracy ? or very simple, as most of us often are,
too confident about earthquake (or science) behaviour ?
I believe, this is exactly what happen to that terrible March 30, 2009.
Probably judge Marco Billi will call it, in a very simple way, a wrong and misleading communication.
The question
is that we should be very careful in what we say and how we communicate,
because "common people" listen to us and most of the time
(unfortunately I would say in these two cases, both in ITALY by chance)
follow our recommendations. Natural phenomena scare people and clear and
comprehensible (obviously CORRECT) information is needed. It is true
that people listen once "emotional chords" are touched, I would simply
add, when they are interested to listen and the message and they way we
convey it is CLEAR and CORRECT. It is not matter of uncertainty I think,
but more of TRUTH. We are obliged to say what we know and above all to
state what we do not know. In a few words, OUR LIMITS.
We should
probaly start to interrogate ourselves if those who listen to us "really
understand" what we say. Our words should not be interpreted, because
if it is so, it means that once again, we failed in delivering
information and we were not able to explain our work and our findings.
Last words about commissions/boards in Italy. Few already clearly stated what they think about it.
I strongly
believe that the past and current way to be chosen is completely unfair
and possibly WRONG. It is on friendship ties or political liasons. It
should be on merit, BUT MOST OF ALL, on experience (direct and on the
ground if necessary) in the specific field needed by the GRANDI RISCHI
board and all similar commissions worlwide.
I have red some names in the current ones, I am, franckly speaking, strongly DOUTING that something have changed.
Please forgive me if I have been a bit TOO LONG.
PLEASE DO NOT SHOT on the PIano Player.
Ciao to EVERYONE, Dario.
==============================================================
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.
==============================================================
