Guilty scientists.. or not?

[bojan]

A friend of mine commented on another forum something like below (translation into English is a bit loose and free, as I tried to keep the essence of what he meant):

"For condemnation is the very creation of such farcical institutions (this committee for disasters and so on), which, due to an unpredictable nature of earthquakes, can't do anything about the very reason it was created.
Yet it has an aura of knowledge and authority, thus sending a wrong message to plebs, as if those unfortunate events could be put under some sort of control.
The responsibility of those people involved (scientists and officials) is in the fact that they embarked into something like this."

BTW, the whole situation actually remind me somewhat of "Black Saturday" and associated events in Victoria couple of years ago, when 173 people died.

[sjastro]

The upshot of this decision is that the Italian court has inadvertently proclaimed seismology to be an "exact" science and the loss of life is based on human factors such as poor judgement, incompetence, deception etc

The judge said that the information these scientists provided to the committee was "inexact, incomplete and contradictory,"

An interesting quote given it is a textbook definition for an "inexact" science.
Like climate science, seismology has mechanisms that can impose positive or negative feedback on a system. The key is to determine which is the stronger feedback.
For example the "swarm of small earthquakes" leading to the chances of a major earthquake (the standard line) could just as well have resulted in a reduction in the build up of internal stresses, thereby reducing the chances.

Predicting the correct outcome is not as straightforward as the Italian courts would seem to suggest.

Regards

Steven

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

There's still plenty of good science that can be applied without actually predicting the earthquake. Geohazard mapping can identify those areas more prone to liquefaction (when wet sand turns to runny goo after a good shake) and where the subsurface may cause local intensification of the ground roll. Presumably that's what these guys were meant to be doing!
cheers - Andrew.
Now for some reason our corporate lawyer wants a chat... thanks a lot, Mario...

[Danack (Dan Ackroyd)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

The upshot of this decision is that the Italian court has inadvertently proclaimed seismology to be an "exact" science and the loss of life is based on human factors such as poor judgement, incompetence, deception etc

My understanding is that it's the other way around i.e. The civil defense guy speaking on behalf of the scientists said there was no risk, and it was definitely safe for people to be in their houses, which lead people to go back inside trusting the guys word.

What he should have said they didn't know if there was any extra risk, and it was up to people to decide whether to go back inside or not.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Danack

My understanding is that it's the other way around i.e. The civil defense guy speaking on behalf of the scientists said there was no risk, and it was definitely safe for people to be in their houses, which lead people to go back inside trusting the guys word.

What he should have said they didn't know if there was any extra risk, and it was up to people to decide whether to go back inside or not.

As with any court case it depends on whether you agree with the prosecution or defense point of view.
According to the defense view the now infamous meeting was held partly to dispel fears that an earthquake was imminent rather than the accepted 2% probablity that a swarm of small earthquakes would lead to a larger quake.
This is based on the peer reviewed paper.
http://www.bssaonline.org/content/78/4/1538.abstract

The fear of an imminent earthquake was based on the following.

....... a resident named Giampaolo Giuliani began to make unofficial earthquake predictions on the basis of measurements of radon gas levels. Giuliani, who had worked for 40 years as a laboratory technician, including 20 years at the nearby Gran Sasso National Laboratory until his retirement in 2010, had deployed four home-made radon detectors throughout the region.

The idea behind radon measurement, Giuliani says, is that emissions of the gas fluctuate significantly in the 24 hours before an earthquake. But their use as a reliable short-term predictor of earthquakes has never been scientifically proved or accepted. The recent ICEF report deemed Giuliani's findings "unsatisfactory", and he has yet to publish a single peer-reviewed paper on his radon work. Nonetheless, he maintained an open website that posted real-time radon measurements from his detectors, and in interviews with journalists and in an informal mobile-phone network, Giuliani made predictions about low-level seismic activity. Although the ICEF report notes that he made two false forecasts, The Guardian newspaper dubbed him "The Man Who Predicted An Earthquake", after the April 2009 quake hit.

If the prosecution view is correct, the science only forms part of the risk assessment process, it should not be the sole basis of the assessment.

Regards

Steven

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

This seems too preposterous to be true!
I shall investigate!
Italy seemed pretty science-friendly from 18 months I lived there and while certainly open to financial incentives, the Italian judiciary is usually pretty sensible.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by bojan

A friend of mine commented on another forum something like below (translation into English is a bit loose and free, as I tried to keep the essence of what he meant):

"For condemnation is the very creation of such farcical institutions (this committee for disasters and so on), which, due to an unpredictable nature of earthquakes, can't do anything about the very reason it was created.
Yet it has an aura of knowledge and authority, thus sending a wrong message to plebs, as if those unfortunate events could be put under some sort of control.
The responsibility of those people involved (scientists and officials) is in the fact that they embarked into something like this."

BTW, the whole situation actually remind me somewhat of "Black Saturday" and associated events in Victoria couple of years ago, when 173 people died.

Dead correct Bojan! It is someone to blame that the victims are looking for.

It was 49.7C with 100km/hr Northerly winds and a relative humidity of 0% in my backyard after a very long drought on Black Saturday. Who would have thought that a bushfire would spread at unprecedented speeds. This situation was totally predictable and was.

Any future earthquake cannot be predicted by any current methods.

It all reeks of the ignorance of people who have faith in the supernatural and then blame the nearest earthly scapegoat! At least the ignorati do not come for you with pitchforks and bit of burning at the stake these days in advanced? countries but with lawyers and equally ignorant judges.

I did not die of my cancer. It was all due to the lack of effective treatment by my oncologist!

Bert

[richardda1st (Richard)]

I did not die of my cancer. It was all due to the lack of effective treatment by my oncologist!

Bert[/QUOTE]


Sorry to hear of your passing away Bert, you will be missed.

Never mind.
Cheers anyway

[AndrewJ]

Just listening to the morning news ( re the Italian Justice system )
If you want to be a scientist in Italy, its safe as houses,
just make sure you are over 70 years of age :-)
( Mr Berlusconi, ( ex PM ), who featured in an earlier cartoon, has just been found guilty on one of his many charges. He was sentenced to 4 years jail, but when he was PM he got through a law that you cant jail people over 70.
Guess who is older than 70 :-) )

Andrew

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Just listening to the morning news ( re the Italian Justice system )
If you want to be a scientist in Italy, its safe as houses,
just make sure you are over 70 years of age :-)
( Mr Berlusconi, ( ex PM ), who featured in an earlier cartoon, has just been found guilty on one of his many charges. He was sentenced to 4 years jail, but when he was PM he got through a law that you cant jail people over 70.
Guess who is older than 70 :-) )

Andrew

With the stresses put on Italian scientists I doubt many of them will reach the age of 70.
Evidently it's possible you can also be prosecuted for issuing earthquake alerts that don't eventuate but lead to public panic.

Who the hell can work under such conditions like that.

Regards

Steven

[astroron (Ron)]

A few years ago here in Queensland, a Cyclone warning was given for some of the holiday isle's to evacuate, when the Cyclone did not effect those islands, they where screaming for compensation for the lost customers
So even though it wasn't Scientists as such, the BOM and other agencies where given a bit of a rough time
Still happens when things like freak storms occur and they blame the BOM for not telling them.
Cheers

[sjastro]

In case you thought the non Earth Sciences were "immune" to the Italian courts, we now have the "Autism is caused by vaccination" debate reopened.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...m-7858596.html

Regards

Steven

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Who the hell can work under such conditions like that.

Well certainly not the people who perished.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Colin

Originally Posted by sjastro http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif
Who the hell can work under such conditions like that.
Well certainly not the people who perished.

I hope the next time you have to go to a hospital,
with something odd wrong with you, they dont say,
"Im sorry, the science isnt good enough yet for me to
give you an opinion"

It wasnt the "fault" of the seismologists.

Wonder what would have happened if it was
the parish priest who said it will all be OK

Andrew

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

Well certainly not the people who perished.

Given these poor people died as result of the collapsing of structures why not proportion the blame on individuals associated with the constructions, such as the structural and soil engineers, the builders, even the town planners.
And while we at it why we don't we blame the local population for living in earthquake prone areas.

The idea you can pigeon hole culpability on a small group of individuals who at the very best produce a model that states that 98% of the times a major quake would not have occurred, who have no control on building codes, population density and a host of other variables that can impact on casualties, is nothing more than a blatant exercise of looking for a scapegoat.

The point is there is no one to blame.

Steven

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Gday Colin

I hope the next time you have to go to a hospital,
with something odd wrong with you, they dont say,
"Im sorry, the science isnt good enough yet for me to
give you an opinion"

Yes you are probably correct there. I was in hospital in May 1951 when I was born. Haven't been back since then.
Good chance the next time I go is on my last day on Earth

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Given these poor people died as result of the collapsing of structures why not proportion the blame on individuals associated with the constructions, such as the structural and soil engineers, the builders, even the town planners.

The city is very old. Some building were hundreds of years old. Doubt if they are still alive. Some newer buildings that collapsed may have been built to the regulations at that time.
If deliberate shortcuts were taken as a cost saving measures, then yes, they have a case to answer.

The point is there is no one to blame.

The judges beg to differ.
The Italian justice system have conducted 3 years of investigations. I think they know more about the situation than what you may read in the tabloids.

[joe_smith]

Please Note: I am not against people being vaccinated, I even get the flu shot like all good citizen's and believe they do more good then harm. or condone the sentences of scientists even if some do deserve it. I post this counter argument for this debate, in support of the other view, just to keep the thread even.


MMR vaccine causes autism' claim banned

This article is good in saying why its banned but what dose this part in it mean?

it considered to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism but which it claimed includes the lead author's conclusion: "We cannot rule out the existence of a susceptible subgroup with an increased risk of autism if vaccinated."

Dr Halvorsen added that "research, including large population studies, has since shown that the MMR is not causing the large majority of autism, but has been unable to exclude the possibility that it is causing autism in a small number of susceptible children".

(underling is mine)

So is there some truth to the question "Can vaccination cause Autism?" from the above quotes?

How do they tell who is in the subgroup? are they warned or tested? how would YOU feel if you had a normal healthy child before being vaccinated then after being vaccinated starts to show signs of autism? what would your view be?
Its easy to sit back and judge people for their actions from the comfort of our own save haven, looking in from the out side. But I bet the people saying "How stupid they are" would have a different point of view holding their own child in their hands that was healthy before being vaccinated. Or digging their dead family from the ruins of their safe haven that seismologists allegedly said "would be OK",

The point is there is no one to blame.

Do you mean scientists are above the law or not bound by them? If they make comments or their actions had a negative effect that directly affected peoples lives shouldn't they be held accountable? if that quote is true then why have seismologists? and why should we listen to them? where is their credibility? Why do scientists that study earthquakes ask for our money so they can keep looking for a way to predict earthquakes when the majority view held here is "its 100% impossible to name the day and time a big one will hit?" are seismologists that are trying to find a way to predict earthquakes doing science or pseudoscience?
For me, its no different then me saying I might be able give you the winning lotto numbers 5,15,25,27,36,41? we just need more money for research. Wouldn't the money be better kept for when a earthquake actually hits? Note: lotto numbers may or may not be true

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

The city is very old. Some building were hundreds of years old. Doubt if they are still alive. Some newer buildings that collapsed may have been built to the regulations at that time.

The Wikipedia article for the 2009 Earthquake in L'Aquila paints a somewhat different picture.

While most of l'Aquila's medieval structures suffered damage, many of its modern buildings suffered the greatest damage, for instance, a dormitory at the university of l'Aquila collapsed. Even some buildings that were believed to be "earthquake-proof" were damaged. L'Aquila Hospital's new wing, which opened in 2000 and was thought capable of resisting almost any earthquake, suffered extensive damage and had to be closed.

If deliberate shortcuts were taken as a cost saving measures, then yes, they have a case to answer.

Yes there is a case to answer.
Once again from Wikipedia.

Poor building standards or construction materials seem to have further contributed to the large number of victims. According to firefighters and other rescuers, some concrete elements of the fallen buildings "seemed to have been made poorly, possibly with sand".[37] An official at Italy's Civil Protection Agency, Franco Barberi, said that "in California, an earthquake like this one would not have killed a single person".[38] According to Italian media, L'Aquila's chief prosecutor has opened a probe into possible criminal blame for the collapses.[39]

The judges beg to differ.
The Italian justice system have conducted 3 years of investigations. I think they know more about the situation than what you may read in the tabloids.

Remember the Italian justice system has the benefit of hindsight, the scientists did not have that luxury.
While the system had 3 years of investigation, the science has been around a lot longer, nearly 15 years since the peer reviewed paper indicated the precursor conditions are not a reliable indicator for predicting major earthquakes. While the official line is that the scientists were not prosecuted for their predictions or rather the lack of it, the fact is that their function. They are not risk assessors.

The Wikipedia article only reinforces the case of the scientists being the scapegoats in particular when no charges were laid over the poor building standards.

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Please Note: I am not against people being vaccinated, I even get the flu shot like all good citizen's and believe they do more good then harm. or condone the sentences of scientists even if some do deserve it. I post this counter argument for this debate, in support of the other view, just to keep the thread even.


MMR vaccine causes autism' claim banned

This article is good in saying why its banned but what dose this part in it mean?

(underling is mine)

So is there some truth to the question "Can vaccination cause Autism?" from the above quotes?

How do they tell who is in the subgroup? are they warned or tested? how would YOU feel if you had a normal healthy child before being vaccinated then after being vaccinated starts to show signs of autism? what would your view be?

Perhaps the good doctor is covering his back given these days scientists can be sued or imprisoned, or a small percentage of the population does in fact have a genetic disposition to react differently to the vaccine. What it doesn't mean is that the vaccine causes autism in the general population.

Its easy to sit back and judge people for their actions from the comfort of our own save haven, looking in from the out side. But I bet the people saying "How stupid they are" would have a different point of view holding their own child in their hands that was healthy before being vaccinated.

Or alternatively your child dies from the very disease the vaccination was designed to prevent but was not given.
The emotive argument runs both ways doesn't it.

Or digging their dead family from the ruins of their safe haven that seismologists allegedly said "would be OK",

Another emotive argument.

Do you mean scientists are above the law or not bound by them? If they make comments or their actions had a negative effect that directly affected peoples lives shouldn't they be held accountable? if that quote is true then why have seismologists? and why should we listen to them? where is their credibility? Why do scientists that study earthquakes ask for our money so they can keep looking for a way to predict earthquakes when the majority view held here is "its 100% impossible to name the day and time a big one will hit?" are seismologists that are trying to find a way to predict earthquakes doing science or pseudoscience?

No one is above the law, the question is the law equally applied to all.
Evidently not so in the Italian justice system. Apparently building a sub standard structure that collapses and kills people doesn't lead to prosecution.
Seriously who is more culpable the builder who takes shortcuts or the seismologist?
Seismology incidentally is the study of earthquakes of which earthquake prediction is a small subset of the science. The fact is earthquake prediction is highly unreliable, only the Italian justice system seems to think otherwise.

As one goes from the physical to the biological and earth sciences you will find the "predictive powers" of the sciences diminishes.

Steven