Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

L’Aquila. Scientists in the dock.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; mso-themecolor:hyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p.infuse, li.infuse, div.infuse {mso-style-name:infuse; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} @page WordSection1 {size:595.0pt 842.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} -->


 

At 3.32 am on 6h April 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the Italian city of L’Aquila, killing more than 300 people, injuring more than 1500, flattening many historic buildings, and leaving thousands homeless. Six Italian scientists and one government official are now on trial for manslaughter for failing to adequately warn the public about this earthquake.

 

When the charges were first announced in June 2010, and more recently when the trial actually began in September this year, the scientific community spoke out against the case. More than 5,000 scientists signed an open letter to the president of Italy, condemning the accusations as unfounded. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) both issued statements against the charges (AGU, AAAS), whilst many individual scientists have also made statements in support of the scientists involved and warning of the danger of making scientists scared to share their knowledge for fear of prosecution. Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media was not so sympathetic to the scientists and picked up on an enticing story of how a rogue scientist had predicted the earthquake, but was unable to issue a warning due to a gagging order.

 

So, what are the facts behind this case?

 

L’Aquila sits in a seismically active region, on an ancient lake bed that amplifies seismic activity. There have been many earthquakes in the history of L’Aquila, the most devastating being those on 31st July 1786, 3rd February 1703, and 22nd January 1349, which killed about 6,000, 3,000 and 800 people, respectively. Other notable earthquakes occurred in 1315, 1452, 1461, 1501, 1646, 1706, and in 1958 there was a magnitude 5.0 earthquake.

 

In the months preceding the 6th April earthquake, there had been several swarms of smaller earthquakes in the L’Aquila area, resulting in much unrest and fear in the local population. In response to this, local officials called a meeting with earthquake experts to discuss the earthquake risk in the area.  On arriving at this meeting, the scientists found it to be filled with more government officials than usual and later reflected that it seemed to be more of a public relations exercise than a real discussion of risks and how to deal with them.

The meeting concluded that the swarms of small earthquakes were normal for that area and that there was no reason to say that a sequence of small-magnitude events can be considered a predictor of a strong event. This much is scientifically correct, but still fails to address what the real risks were and what preventative measures could be taken. Indeed, it appears that all statements made by seismology experts were scientifically sound, but perhaps the overall discussion was targeted too much towards calming the population, rather than considering what could be done to reduce and understand the risk in the area. Bernado De Bernardinis, an official in the Department of Civil Protection who is not a seismologist, also stated to the press: “The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable." Though this is a nice idea, there is no scientific validity to it and it is not mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. Indeed, the occurrence of these small earthquakes would slightly increase rather than decrease the risk of a larger earthquake occurring. De Bernardinis went on to agree with a journalist who proposed they should enjoy a glass of wine rather than worrying about earthquakes.

After this meeting, the small earthquakes continued, including a Magnitude 3.9 earthquake just before 11 pm on 5th April. A few hours later, at 3.32 am, the devastating Magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck.

 

Who is on trial?

 

Enzo Boschi, then-president of Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) in Rome

Franco Barberi, from the University of 'Rome Tre'

Mauro Dolce, head of the seismic-risk office at the national Department of Civil Protection in Rome

Claudio Eva, from the University of Genova

Giulio Selvaggi, director of the INGV's National Earthquake Centre in Rome

Gian Michele Calvi, president of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering in Pavia

Bernardo De Bernardinis, a government official who was then the vice-director of the Department of Civil Protection, an expert in flooding with little knowledge of seismic risk.

 

And what of Gioacchino Giuliani, the man who claims to have predicted the earthquake?

 

Media coverage in the L’Aquila region in March 2009 was inflamed by a series of earthquake predictions issued by Gioacchino Giuliani, a local man who worked as technician in a physics laboratory. He measured radon emissions on four home-made detectors in the region, believing that the emissions fluctuate significantly in the 24 hours before an earthquake. Though several different scientists have pursued this line of research since the 1970s, its reliability as an earthquake predictor has neither been proved nor accepted. Furthermore, Giuliani himself had yet to publish any peer-reviewed work on his findings. This background, coupled with 2 false forecasts that he had posted on an open website and reiterated to journalists, led to him being cited for generating public alarm and prohibited from making further statements on 30th March. He claims to have predicted the 6th April earthquake, but there is no proof of how specific this forecast was, nor of how frequently he would have offered a ‘false alarm’, given the chance.

 

What type of earthquake warnings are scientists able to give?

 

Regions most prone to earthquake hazards throughout the world are well defined. Indeed, before this 2009 earthquake, Italy already had well researched hazard maps for earthquake risk, in which L’Aquila was identified as a high risk area that required earthquake resistant building codes. Despite this knowledge of earthquake prone areas, scientists are still not able to predict the location, timing, and size of an impending earthquake. There are certain circumstances that are believed to indicate an increase in the likelihood of an earthquake occurring by as much as 1000 times (for example, it has been shown that a medium sized earthquake in a swarm, such as the one that occurred hours before the 5th April L’Aquila earthquake, results in a large earthquake within 2 days approximately 2 % of the time). This 1000 fold increase in earthquake risk would represent a change from a 0.001 % chance of an earthquake occurring on a given day in a given region to a 1 % chance. Should forecasts and evacuation orders be issued when there is a 99 % chance of it being a false alarm? This inability of any scientist to make a reliable earthquake forecast is the central point in most of the statements made in support of the L’Aquila scientists. How could they warn of something that nobody can reliably forecast?

 

However, many of those involved in the prosecution say that they understand that a specific forecast or warning would not have been possible, but believe that the scientists acted irresponsibly in not highlighting the risks that did exist nor offering any practical advice. In particular, some have stated that the earthquake on the preceding evening would have prompted them to evacuate their homes for the night, but for the strong reassurances from scientists and public officials. This is easy to say, and indeed to believe, in hindsight. Proving this point could be the crucial to the case.

 

And the overall outlook…

 

Ultimately, I do not know of any scientist who has stated that they agree with the manslaughter charges. However, there are differing degrees of support. Some believe they are completely faultless, expected to do the impossible in predicting earthquakes. Others believe that whilst individual scientists should not be held to account, there are lessons to be learned in communicating earthquake risk; whilst some even go as far as to say that the scientists and local officials are culpable of placating the community when they should have been making them aware of a slightly heightened risk and offering practical advice.