[Andy Mayhew]

The trial starts next week. It's something we all really ought be watching with interest and trepidation.

Will weather forecasters be next?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ght/9593123.stm

[Ian Williams]

Just read it, That is unbelievable, lets hope justice prevails, although even his Lawyer doesn`t sound confident, seems like a right farce - having the trial in the same town where the quake hit, which affected the entire town. Its almost like a lynching to me! If convicted, who would want to be future scientists, Geologists, volcanologists or even meteorologists ?

This post has been edited by Ian Williams: 17 September 2011 - 12:03

[Foxy2]

The article suggests its some specific (safety) advice given by the goverment thats in question, not the science per se. How you distinguish between those two I don't know as the advice one assumes was based on science. I have sympathy for both sides but will watch this with interest. I wonder if there was political intervention. Science and politics are not obvious partners. If its science thats on trial then god help us all.

[Andy Mayhew]

I understand the case revolves around the suggestion that the scientists assured the populace that it was safe to stay put and had they not said so, many would have fled before the 'quake. Of course, it's easy to say that you would have left, after the event. Nonetheless, the ramifications could still be dangerous if they are found guilty.

[Stuart_W]

It's probably rather related to whether or not they followed the proper procedure in response to the initial tremors. Obviously there can prosecution for 'failing' to predict a major earthquake but they must, presumably, have procedures that should be followed and perhaps this is what the trial is trying to establish

[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

Obviously, the main idea we should take from this incident is though seismic activity does not a potential earthquake make, you can go too far towards placating a populations fears which have been stoked by conjecture. Increased Radon did not necessarily mean that an earthquake was iminent. However, it could have indicated that there may have been magma involved and hence the potential of a large earthquake. Any large change in monitored precurors should stand out as a warning to be managed. The problem is we do not yet have sufficient data to point to the weight that precusors should have in the prediction of an event.

Mount St. Helen's side bulge should have been a clear warning of a potential lateral explosion, where the exclusion area should be asymetric. That this was missed was likely due to a lack of prior experience. Though the record demonstrated it was a possibility, it was only found after 1/3 of the surface area had been removed by the blast and this charactere became evident. In short, if the current pattern looks familiar the expectation is that future phenomena should be similar. Hence, if we have a strato volcano it would seem that future activity should be exiting the top, not the side.

So do we place scientists in jeporady because they do not have evidence to the contrary of an unsubstantiated claim? Facts are only valid for what has happened. If we have no measure of something how can it be refuted. This seems more a case of indeminity for financial responsibility.

All scientists can do is say that if we have seen this pattern in the past, that if circumstances appear similar the potential for repeation is likely. A swarm of earthquakes does not a great quake make. Higher radon gas does not a great quake make, it would appear now in retrospect that a swarm of earthquakes and a increase in radon gas detection may prelude a great quake for this region. Whether it applies to others will have to be examined.

As soon as the government grants funding they can get right on it...

[Foxy2]

Interesting peice in the October 2011 issue of 'Geoscientist' - the newslettter of the Geological Society, London. Follow the link and its the letter by David Alexander way down the list. Doesn't paint a pretty picture of those in charge in Italy.


http://www.geolsoc.o...ientist/letters

L’Aquila earthquake
From David Alexander* (Rec’d & Pub’d 15 August 2011)

Andy