Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Science

Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter For Not Predicting Earthquake 154

Posted by Roblimo from the next-time-the-scientists-might-not-say-anything-at-all dept.
mcgrew writes "From LiveScience: 'Earthquake prediction can be a grave, and faulty science, and in the case of Italian seismologists who are being tried for the manslaughter of the people who died in the 2009 L'Aquila quake, it can have legal consequences.' A group of seven, including six seismologists and a government official, reportedly didn't alert the public ahead of time of the risk of the L'Aquila earthquake, which occurred on April 6 of that year, killing around 300 people, according to the US Geological Survey."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter For Not Predicting Earthquake More

Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter For Not Predicting Earthquake

Comments Filter:

  • More Details (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:22PM (#36264236) Journal
    Details from the LiveScience article [livescience.com] were lacking, to be nice, and fairly one sided. So I dug up a slightly more reputable article [nature.com] that has these facts:

    Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.

    If this is true, this is decidedly different from telling the public that they don't know whether there is any danger. Saying "I can't predict earthquakes" is fine. Saying "You are in no danger" would probably be interpreted differently than "We have no indications that you are at an elevated risk."

    In the aftermath of the quake, which killed 309 people, many citizens said that these reassurances were the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as leaving their homes.

    More specifically, the accusation focuses on a statement made at a press conference on 31 March 2009 by Bernardo De Bernardinis, who was then deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency and is now president of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Rome. "The scientific community tells me there is no danger," he said, "because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable".

    Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes [slashdot.org]? That was the basis for claims that the New Madrid fault line is overestimated ... and the above quote employs the exact opposite logic.

    It appears that the crux of this case rests upon "he told me to say" versus "it's not our job to tell the public." But the civil servant who "summed" up the scientist's summary appears to have fallen victim to treating this like a forecasting of the weather. He will probably regret maintaining a neutral report and should have just said "inconclusive" instead of "looks good."

    Vincenzo Vittorini, a physician in L'Aquila whose wife and daughter were killed in the earthquake and who is now president of the local victims' association '309 Martiri' (309 Martyrs), hopes the trial will lead to a thorough investigation into what went wrong in those days. "Nobody here wants to put science in the dock," he says. "We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices".

    He says that the committee had precious information that was not passed on to citizens, for example on which buildings were most likely to collapse in the event of a strong earthquake. Vittorini thinks that those charged are not the only ones to blame, and that further investigations might eventually place greater responsibilities on politicians at the local and national level.

    Indeed, this sounds to me more like a case against Italy's Civil Protection Agency instead of scientists and seismologists. Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.

    • Oh, well... Never mind.

    • Thanks for digging up more information. The headline made is VERY misleading. Telling people these is no danger is worlds away from not saying/predicting anything. This situtation is more like a MD telling you there is no risk for the surgery.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )

        It completely depends on context.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • If I was given to think about the 2 choices you offered : "Go back to your homes, everything is fine" vrs. "At this point in time we simply don't know"

            I would have to think that statement 1 is factual and certain, while the second statement tells me that nobody knows anything and I am at my own risk.

            it comes down to the lack of common sense from the announcer.

        • It's really a choice between constant warnings and people coming to ignore them and assurances of no danger to prevent panics.

          There is not a winning option until earthquake prediction is reliable.

          I really salute that scientist who took his own time to try to warn people and was suppressed. However, if you allow it, then nutcases would be driving around with loudspeakers 24/7. Difficult situation. Difficult call.

    • I thought you said it was clear!? How's it look now? ...looks clear.

    • So the very person filing this lawsuit has publicly acknowledged that the earthquake could not have been predicted and that the people could not have been evacuated?

      I don't know how Italy's legal system works, but it would be laughed out of court at this point in the US. They've already admitted that even if the scientists and politicians did something horribly wrong, that their doing so was not the proximate cause of the damages. Case dismissed.

      • Re:More Details (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Savantissimo ( 893682 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @01:26PM (#36265026) Journal

        Actually the earthquake was predicted and the warnings were ignored. Italy 'Dismissed Expert's Quake Warning [sky.com] Sky News / 9:06pm UK, Monday April 06, 2009 / Nick Pisa in Rome :

        Seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani had warned "a big one" was on the way and even toured the region in a van with loudspeakers warning people, as late as last week.

        But he was reported to the police by authorities for "needlessly spreading panic" and also dismissed by L'Aquila's mayor and other civic officials.

        Dr Giuliani based his theory on increasingly high levels of radon gas that had been noted in the area and even posted his findings on his website.

        However, he was forced to take them down and the site has not been working.

        Dr Giuliani, who works at the Institute of Nuclear Physics at nearby Gran Sasso, said: "There are people who need to apologise to me. These people will have these deaths on their conscience."

        • I am sure seismologists are like other scientists and talk in terms of the probability of an event happening - thus no scientist is every certain of something, they merely talk of most likely outcomes and most likely explanations based on current information and models. However, when the media and other public sources get their hands on the information, they like to turn them into absolutes - and thus if a scientist says "there is an 80% chance of such-and-such happening" and it causes a panic, they are li

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by pk001i ( 649678 )

          Actually the earthquake was predicted

          If by predicted an earthquake, you mean he predicted the wrong time and the wrong place, then yes, he predicted an earthquake. And this is not the first time he has predicted an earthquake, this is just the first time his prediction was within a week of an earthquake actually occurring.

          Giuliani uses radon as a measure of earths movement, and tries to use increased radon levels as a sign of an impending earthquake. This method has never been found to predict earthquakes, but even a broken clock is corr

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        If a seismologist states categorically that an earthquake is not going to happen, they are stating categorically that they CAN predict earthquakes (or at least their absence).

        In the US, I seriously doubt that this would be laughed out of court. I doubt manslaughter would hold up, but judges would probably rule that the complainant had a right to their day in court precisely because the experts grievously abused their position of trust by telling a falsehood to placate them.

        (FWIW, I'll link this in with TEPC

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrguru ( 88047 )

          The difference is that in the US it would be civil suit which would go forward. Criminal charges would certainly never stick.

          Depending on the court, I don't think I would like to be a defendant in a civil case in the US. Scientists are held in especially low regard by most of the population and anything that can be done to "get 'em" or to serve up a (supposedly) well-deserved cumuppance would certainly be favored by many, many people. Certainly you wouldn't want a jury to get anywhere near this.

          All I can

        • In the US the USGS responds to questions about earthquake probabilities with "We can't predict earthquakes".

          No one can, anyone that claims they can is a liar. Anyone that claims knowledge either way (for or against earthquakes) is lying. We have the barest grasp of plate tectonics and what causes earthquakes. Science indicates the events are entirely random but even if they weren't we simply don't understand the system well enough to make predictions. We're talking stress/strain situations over thousands of

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          No seismologist made any such statement. A bureaucrat did.

    • Saying "You are in no danger" would probably be interpreted differently than "We have no indications that you are at an elevated risk."

      Not by me, but then I know that earthquakes do occur from time to time and we can't as yet predict when.

      So I'd interpret them to mean exactly the same thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        How about: "We don't know how to predict earthquakes, the science doesn't exist, so to make predictions would be to lie."

        • That would frighten the sheeple. And anyone who believes there is such a thing as zero risk has the brains of a farm animal, and I don't mean the smarter kind.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Hasn't it been established that movement of GPS ground stations (slippage) indicates increased risk of earthquakes [slashdot.org]?"

      No. Not really. Deformation is ongoing and varies over time and location in tectonically-active areas. Figuring out that a particular motion is a precursor to a major earthquake versus ordinary, smaller-scale earthquakes that happen all the time is extraordinarily difficult, and can usually only be done after the fact. You can notice that there might be an increase in small

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jd ( 1658 )

        I believe that telescopes observing Japan detected some abnormalities immediately prior to the earthquake, but one observation isn't enough to tell you much about how often those abnormalities occur without earthquakes, how many earthquakes occur without those specific abormalities or whether in the Italian case even if a suitable telescope had made the observation whether there'd be enough time from it being detected, confirmed and relayed over there to make any difference in evacuation. Or, for that matte

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not that they couldn't predict the quake but general failure to provide earthquake plans and proper materials/handouts/PSAs to the public.

      Even so, I don't see how that constitutes the level of negligence to be considered criminal. The prosecutors are going to have to prove that the statements and actions/inactions of the people involved were so reckless that they should have anticipated the resulting consequences of the earthquake, a natural disaster which is considered to be an "act of God". It's absurd, a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Abreu ( 173023 )

      Ok, but can we get Harold Camping in Jail?

  • Maybe the professors who taught the seismologists back in university should be tried for manslaughter, too, for not properly training their students to properly detect and report earthquakes.

    Maybe the public safety authorities should all be fired for failing to regularly consult the seismologists regarding possible upcoming earthquakes.

    Maybe all psychics in the country should be arrested and arraigned for murder, for not predicting the deadly temblor.

    Or, maybe the Italians should just accept that n

    • Re:Who can we sue? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:37PM (#36264416)

      Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.

      • There is a difference between being held accountable for a wrong statement, and being held for manslaughter. I'd much rather have no charges than levy a manslaughter charge.

        I'm not sure if they should be held accountable at all. While they should have worded it better, everyone was safe as far as they could tell. If they had stated the risk properly, it wouldn't have mattered, I really doubt it would have saved lives to properly state the risks.

        All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will ha

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eth1 ( 94901 )

          All I really see is a possible chilling effect which will have the opposite of the desired effect, you'll see students enter other fields than risk a charge that doesn't fit the actual error.

          Actually, what will probably happen is that all future forecasts will be useless, because they'll all just say some variation of, "yes it's possible, but we're not sure; take precautions." People will stop taking them seriously, and be just as unprepared.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yes but members of the committee specifically said that the people were "in no danger". That's a rather bold statement to make and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's no different from a drug company telling people a drug is safe that isn't or a bridge inspector telling people a bridge is safe and it collapses days later.

        The fallacy here is that the seismologists aren't in the business of creating earthquakes to make money. Drug companies are. The seismologists also aren't in real-estate. From a scientific perspective they could have worded it differently, but that wouldn't have changed anyone's behaviour. Do I know this for a fact? No. But people do and believe as the please, and if the scientists had said "we can't see the danger" people would still have heard "there isn't any danger". Hell, for so long now people have be

    • Re:Who can we sue? (Score:5, Funny)

      by LostAlaska ( 760330 ) <lostalaska@hotmail . c om> on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:48PM (#36264552)
      Aren't earthquakes often referred to as "acts of god". So if they want to hold someone accountable, I mean the Vatican is like just down the road...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      The reality is the municipality is at fault for failing to require regionally adequate building design including existing structures. People were killed by buildings that lacked effective structural design to cope with that regions earthquakes, that lack of proper design was driven by nothing more than greed, a unwillingness on the part of property owners to properly reinforce their structures in light of historical risk.

      Those pretty historical buildings might make the tourists happy but they will kill p

  • Who's next, meteorologists? Stock brokers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by killfixx ( 148785 ) * on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:24PM (#36264256) Journal

    Shenanigans!! Double shenanigans!

    This is why I hate gambling!

    What is the penalty if they had erred on the side of caution and had been wrong? Loss of job? Loss of reputation?

    It would have cost millions to plan, evacuate, etc...

    Holding people liable for an act of nature is a dangerous precedent.

    Yikes!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Stripe7 ( 571267 )
      What about Harold Camping and his failed prediction of the rapture? Are they going to sue for that? Predicting earthquakes is still an infant science. What is next? How about suing astronomers for not predicting the next extinction level event because of a GRB or Asteroid impact? Or suing Oceanographers for the rising tides or depleted fish stocks?
      • Bad analogy. Camping personally profited, from people donating money to his cause. As much as I dislike the litigious nature of our society here in the US, I figure he's a valid target.

    • Persecution of stock brokers would be a feature, not a bug.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      Political parties.

      They know what they're doing to us, and, deliberately, they do it regardless.

    • Meteorologists have already been sued [lattianderson.com]. About 25 years ago, and successfully too.
  • Its not like earth quake predictions are accurate. If they cried "wolf" every time they thought there MIGHT be a big earth quake, it would be useless information.

    • Re:And yet, false predictions would also be bad. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:35PM (#36264386)

      Except if you actually found out what really happened:

      Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger.

      Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?

      • Providing such a strong affirmative statement that they were in no danger, despite the fact that it was probably a sincere statement, was not a correct thing to say and they should have realized that if something did happen it was going to open them up to issues. It's like the inspector for a bridge telling people that they are in no danger driving over it yet it collapses days later. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their statements turning out to be untrue?

        The results would have been the same either way. If the seismologists had chosen the third option and told people that 309 people would die, then there could have been a panic, and they get arrested for inciting a riot. If they chose the fourth option ("we know what will happen, but we're not telling you"), then they get arrested for some conspiracy with earthquake makers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geekoid ( 135745 )

        The is no evidence that anyone ever said the public was in no danger.

        The actually comment was based on the current release of energy.

    • Indeed haven't some seismologists gotten in trouble for crying wolf about earthquakes that didn't happen. The way I remember it a seismologist warned that increasing seismic activity was warning an earthquake was likely. Then it didn't happen or happened later than predicted. Seismologist gets in trouble for doing his/her job.

  • Somethings are completely below acceptable standard. Like poor Slashdot editorial care.

    It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen".

    These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem.

    Can we get basic logic right, please?

    This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives. Now it has been joined by lack of basic logic and linguistics here in Slashdot.

    What a dis-service to science.

    Talking about proper scie

    • This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives. Now it has been joined by lack of basic logic and linguistics here in Slashdot. What a dis-service to science. Talking about proper science, may I suggest reading say, The Black Swan?
      Many? 300 dead on a planet of over 6 billion is a rounding error. As for the Black Swan you should warn your fellow readers to prepare for many chapters of self important pseudo erudite wanking by the author. Unless you mean

    • It is completely different to "not predict a earthquake" to "predict that it will not happen". These specialists PREDICTED that there would be no problem. This is a case of scientific hubris (belief in self-ability to predict things) that cost many lives.

      How? Did the victims take especially risky actions that day, believing earthquakes were impossible? In what way did the scientists make the damage of the earthquake worse than if they made no prediction?

      • Bingo. Given that the next "big one" could've been the next day, the next year, or never, what exactly would've been different? You can't very well evacuate a town indefinitely on the basis of "there might be an increased risk of earthquakes, we're not sure". The town is in an earthquake zone, and has been leveled by quakes in the past. You'd think that people would've already taken the proper precautions.

    • Please provide the quote where they explicitly stated that there would *not* be a quake.

      The closest it gets is:

      In one now-infamous interview included in the prosecutors' case, commission member Bernardo De Bernardis of the national civil protection department responded to a question about whether residents should just sit back and relax with a glass of wine. "Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc," he responded, referring to a high-end red. "This seems important."

      The odds of an earthquake, and the timing thereof, can't be predicted with any degree of accuracy. I interpret this as the guy telling people "Just go on with your lives as usual". What else are you supposed to do, when you don't know whether it will happen tomorrow, in 6 months, or in 5 years? If you were going to take precautions against earthquakes (e.g. making sure your home was structurally s

  • 1. Did they know the earthquake was coming?
    2. If they knew it was coming, did they tell people they would be safe?

    All indications are that they knew the earthquake was coming and that they told the people they were safe. If this is true, then they should be charged. Now, if they were suppressed by someone "above them" then they need to say so. But for these people to say "We think there is an earthquake coming but it will be mild, so you can just go about your business" is irresponsible.

    This is why we ha

  • Fun with summaries (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ironchew ( 1069966 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:45PM (#36264500)

    Earthquake prediction can be a faulty science

    I see what you did there...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drb226 ( 1938360 )
      More fun, in true Slashdot style of taking quotes out of context:

      Earthquake prediction can be a grave

      At least 2 puns there ;)

  • Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.

    • Only outlaws will incorrectly predict earthquakes.

      More importantly, if you artificially create a liability for scientists in a certain field, there will be less scientists willing to work in said field and be held liable, and thus less research and advancements in that field. Do they want less accurate predictions of earthquakes?

      Also note: sometimes mass hysteria + earthquake is less dangerous than just the earthquake... Perhaps they wanted to warn everyone, but were secretly advised not to.

  • If it were me I'd start releasing automated warnings every morning.

    • Every morning? Hell, I'd never let the siren take a break! Sure, after a day or two nobody would care about it anymore or even try to sabotage it to get a bit of sleep again, but they can't sue me for that.

  • April Fools is over 10 months away... But this has to be a joke. I know Europe often have kangaroo courts, but this is ridiculous! Are we going to charge The Weather Channel for hurricane and tornado deaths now?

    There needs to be a disclaimer on every weather and planetary report, "Warning, you could die of an 'act of god' today for no other reason that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This broadcast makes no guarantees of safety. Consult a doctor before taking action. No batteries included.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

      The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.

      There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."

      See the difference?

      • The USA has plenty of bad courts as well.

        Didn't say the USA didn't.

        There is a major difference between staying you don't know if there will be a quake and stating there will not be a quake. The Weather Channel never says "There will be no tornadoes in Joliet today."

        Actually, no. If the Weather channel predicts a path for a storm on a line, and the storm changes direction unexpectedly (which does happen), it would be the same situation. There is a common sense presumption that mother nature is, by nature, unpredictable. Tornadoes can form out of clear skies and strike any time of year, even in winter. The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999... [wikipedia.org], but there are no guarantees, ever.

        Trusting anyone, ESPECIALLY a seismo

        • The chance of surviving a tornado on any given day might be 0.999..., but there are no guarantees, ever.

          Assuming you meant "probability" when you used "chance," you're contradicting yourself. What I don't get is that, since you knew enough to link the wiki page for 0.999..., you know of the "special properties" of it. a probability of 1 = a guarantee.

          Another inherent contradiction, too, in the second part. By speaking in absolutes, you are essentially guaranteeing that there are no guarantees.

          Have I just been whooshed?

      • But sometimes they predict "partly cloudy" and a tornado ends up striking. While they didn't explicitly say "no tornadoes", a forecast of "partly cloudy" (maybe even with a "0% chance of precipitation") pretty clearly says there's going to be no tornadoes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rakishi ( 759894 )

        Please provide the quote of when they said there would be no quake before the quake?

  • Psychics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pitchpipe ( 708843 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:55PM (#36264642)
    This is my idea for Psychics: whenever some sort of disaster happens and a Psychic comes along claiming to have predicted it, unless he can produce any evidence showing that he tried to warn people beforehand with specific warnings, he should be thrown into prison as responsible for those lives.

  • Opps there goes science (Score:3)

    by StillNeedMoreCoffee ( 123989 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @01:00PM (#36264690)

    Talk about a chilling effect on scientific research.. The next thing you will be doing is suing Doctors if they get a diagnosis wrong, oh wait we are doing that.

  • For the love of $deity, please let the judge hand out some sensible judgment. Else the only thing you'll ever get to hear from geologists is scaremongering lest they be liable should the earth tremble somewhere. How do you expect to get sensible predictions if you sue if they happen to be wrong?

    Imagine you're a weatherman and get sued if it rains after you predict sunshine. So what are you going to predict? Exactly. Rain. All year long. No matter what your data says.

  • That is seriously stupid! It's an inexact science. How can they possibly be held responsible?

  • great. (Score:3)

    by spongman ( 182339 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @01:07PM (#36264792)

    I'm not a qualified slashdot commenter, and in no way should this comment be taken to convey any meaning, opinion, or suggestion that could in any way harm the reader. The poster is not to be held liable for any damages incurred by, or after reading this comment. By reading this comment, the reader hereby relinquishes any right to sue, or in any other way claim damages from the poster, and any such legal proceeding shall be brought in a location of the posters choosing. The content of this post is copyright (c) 2011 the poster, all rights reserved. Any reproduction of the comment must contain this paragraph.

    What a load of fucking bullshit.

  • Idiocracy? No, Italy.

  • in the future, seismologists will be unwilling to say people aren't in danger, and causation them to take precautions. When people leave, disrupting routine activity, and nothing happens they will yell at the seismologists and eventually ignore warnings. then, when it really happens, the seismologists can say "we warned you." Of course, some legal wiz will decide it's the seismologists fault that the event didn't happen and hold them responsible for the losses caused by people leaving or panicking.

    • If there's a fault line sitting right there, I think reasonable precautions are entirely necessary. If you know there's going to be an earthquake within the next fifty to one hundred years, why not prepare? Especially if lots of your buildings are old and not earthquake-ready, it seems disingenuous to tell people not to worry about them.

      But the intent of this trial is not to punish scientists for their results, it is to determine who told lies to the public and whether the truth would have saved lives.

  • the original Christian version of the Taliban. One would have to expect occasional insanity. Here's hoping there are more sane people than crazies.

  • I guess nothing has changed since the days of Gallileo.

    Italian government remains corrupt top-to-bottom, its judiciary remains primitive banging-rocks-together screwheads. This isn't just one knuckle-dragging "judge"; this so-called "investigation" has been going on for over a year. Hundreds of people have had an opportunity to say "Questo è stupido, e si ferma subito." None have. Any scientists left in that pit of willful ignorance should get out, and get out now, because the tort lawyers are coming

  • What? This sounds like something that would happen here in America. Somehow, its all the seismologists' fault. What? What kind of a whiney, victimized brain does it take to come up with a reason to charge someone with manslaughter in this case. Earthquakes are not easily predicted and certainly not accurately. The statements from the Seismologists should be listened to but with understanding that they are likely off (at least to some extent). Somehow, these cases should be thrown right out the door a

  • Italian Law.

    Could that be the original oxymoron?

  • Italian Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella has just been charged for failing to warn Bernardo De Bernardis that this would happen before De Bernardis accepted his current job with the Great Risks Commission.

  • And suddenly, no more Seismologists! (Score:3)

    by TriezGamer ( 861238 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @03:14PM (#36266162)

    Who's going to volunteer to be the next disaster prediction expert when you wind up imprisoned for it? Yeah, mistakes suck -- but without them, you'll NEVER have a warning.

  • Can we get the Global Warming scientists next? After all, we're set to spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting Global Warming over the next decades. If they're wrong, can we get a refund?

  • Sue *all* psychics! (Score:3)

    by KreAture ( 105311 ) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:17PM (#36268692)
    Everyone who has ever claimed to be psychic should thus be sued for not predicting the earthquakes.
    Further more they are responsible for Fukushima and even for me missing my bus last thursday.

    They should also make it illegal to be wrong.
    That will fix all problems, even those relating to politics as then no decisions made in "the publics best interest" will be wrong and life will be perfect.

    Really, everything will be peachy! Unless I am wrong ofcource...

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close