PSN-L Message - Subject: Re: L'Aquila quake

On 11/6/2012 8:30 PM, chrisatupw@....... wrote: > From: Mauro Mariotti > To: psnlist > Sent: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 7:34 > Subject: Fwd: Re: L'aquila quake > > Hello, > > there is a video on YouTube: It is in Italian > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUwEdlAh1Fw > Itisn't about the l'aquila quake, but what Prof. Boschi said about a > different area in 2008, the area in question is the Padania region > (Emilia-Romagna) where a major earthquake happened the last May and > where also a really really bad effect of soil liquefaction happened. > > This is how they talk and think... > Do you still believe they don't should be brought to the court ? > > > Hi Mauro, > > Have you heard of the definition of a Camel ? It is a Horse - as designed by a Committee ! > > And here we are concerned about the behavior of a particular Committee. > > > Could you check up on the number and magnitudes of quakes experienced within say 40 km > > of L'Aquila in the past200 years, please ? I know that some parts of Italy are much more > > seismically active than others, but I have no knowledge of quakes in this particular area.Have there > > ANY previous examplesofa swarm ofmoderate level quakes being followed by major quake ? > > > I just can't see us EVER having a similar problem here in the UK ! If I was worried about quakes and > > decided to camp out away from any buildings, or to leave the area, but was told by a Defence Department > > Official that therewas no danger and that I should go home, I would politely thank him for his kind > > advice and then ignore it. Only if he tried to insist would Iask him what his expertise was and, on > > learningthat he was merely an Official, tell him to 'get lost'. This would be a common reaction. > Thinking about this attitude, the whole population in the UK are more than a bit sceptical about > > believingweather forecasts - withVERYgood reason ! We live on the junction between the Atlantic and > > the Continental weather systems and as the weatheris alsosensitive to the terrain, it is very difficult to > > predict accurately. The Met Office still occasionally gets the forecast badly wrong.A fine sunny day may > > be forecast, but I still have a good look at the sky in themorning !This distrust plays over in the 'mind' of > > the public into ANY official pronouncements ! > > > Now, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that major earthquakes can be predicted at anyparticular > > time, in spite of veryconsiderable efforts having been made to predict them, so the opinion that there > > wasNO SIGNIFICANT DANGER seems to have been PERFECTLY CORRECT.You may have a > > geological fault line which has historically failed every 50 years 'on average', > > but you CAN'T predict theday, the week or the year when this will happen. And > > you CAN'T install devices to measure rock stresses down to 100 miles underground ! > In largely protestant countries, we don't tend to believe the myth that ANYONE is INFALLABLE ! > > > What is the 'chain of command' and relationship of authority between the various Italian departments > > involved, please ? I would have expected the seismologists to have been an advisory committee and > > the Defence Department to have beenresponsible fortaking decisions and interacting with the public. > > Have any members of the Defence Department been prosecuted, please ? The seismologists are > > VERY UNLIKELY to have been patrolling the streets of D'Aquila themselves telling people not to worry > > and to go home ! > > Have any transcripts of the trial been released yet ? My point is that we do not seem to have any > > firm information yet on who said what to whom and when. > I understand from the TV recording that the official seismology body in Italy may have been giving > > some dubious 'opinions', but the scope of this legal action against the members seems to be quite > > disproportionate. It could be reasonable to prosecute the head of a committee if he has failed to carry > > out his duties, or has done them corruptly. > > However, the nominally controversial 2008 statement by Professor Boschi that there was no risk to > > a gas storage project at Mirandolafromforeseeable earthquakes could well be correct. Gas storage > > may be done in porous, dome shaped rock formations many hundreds of metres underground which > > are capped by impervious rock.So longas a fault line does not intersect this dome, it shouldnot be > > damaged by quakes, even ones which may flatten local buildings. > > Explaining this to the general public may be a bit more difficult. > You say "He (Boschi) said all measurement was made and no danger was expected for that area > > EVEN IF A MAJOR QUAKE COULD OCCUR". Now a major quake would certainly be expected to > > damage buildings, sothe statement clearly refers to the gas storage dome underground. > > In May 2012there was a major quake resulting in thousands of damaged houses and >10 fatalities. > I have not heard of any update on this. > I will be very interested to hear the result of the appeal against the prosecution. The logic of this conviction > > escapes me. I doubt if Mauro's arguments can be upheld. > > > Regards, > > > Chris Chapman > > > > Il 22/10/2012 22:23, Antonio Moura ha scritto: > > I totally agree with Steinar. I am think that part of what is essential > > is to strive to make clear of what really is the probabilistic nature > > and the uncertainty associated with such natural phenomena. Lawyers and > > judges and general public sometimes have a great lack of knowledge in > > Scientific matters and the little science they can grasp is of a > > Deterministic, 2+2=4, nature. In Portugal two Scientists published an > > interesting book called "How to Talk to Reporters without being on the > > Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" ... I think this also should apply to > > lawyers and such "species" alike .. However I did not expect this type > > of judgement from a country with such a tradition in seismology and > > science. I guess that having an "escape goat" in certain troubled times > > must speak higher. > > > > Rui Moura As a preface to a talk/podcast by Michele Calvi earlier this month USGS members at the seminar were told not to publicly talk about the court case in Italy in front of the camera.....interesting???

On 11/6/2012 8:30 PM, chrisatupw@....... wrote:

From: Mauro Mariotti <mariotti@.........>

To: psnlist <psnlist@..............>
Sent: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 7:34
Subject: Fwd: Re: L'aquila quake

Hello,

there is a video on YouTube: It is in Italian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUwEdlAh1Fw
 It isn't about the l'aquila quake, but what Prof. Boschi said about a
different area in 2008, the area in question is the Padania region
(Emilia-Romagna) where a major earthquake happened the last May and
where also a really really bad effect of soil liquefaction happened.

This is how they talk and think...
Do you still believe they don't should be brought to the court ? 


Hi Mauro,

    Have you heard of the definition of a Camel ? It is a Horse - as designed by a Committee ! 

And here we are concerned about the behavior of a particular Committee. 


    Could you check up on the number and magnitudes of quakes experienced within say 40 km 

of L'Aquila in the past 200 years, please ? I know that some parts of Italy are much more 

seismically active than others, but I have no knowledge of quakes in this particular area. Have there 

ANY previous examples of a swarm of moderate level quakes being followed by major quake ? 


     I just can't see us EVER having a similar problem here in the UK ! If I was worried about quakes and 

decided to camp out away from any buildings, or to leave the area, but was told by a Defence Department 

Official that there was no danger and that I should go home, I would politely thank him for his kind 

advice and then ignore it. Only if he tried to insist would I ask him what his expertise was and, on 

learning that he was merely an Official, tell him to 'get lost'. This would be a common reaction. 
    Thinking about this attitude, the whole population in the UK are more than a bit sceptical about 

believing weather forecasts - with VERY good reason ! We live on the junction between the Atlantic and 

the Continental weather systems and as the weather is also sensitive to the terrain, it is very difficult to 

predict accurately. The Met Office still occasionally gets the forecast badly wrong. A fine sunny day may 

be forecast, but I still have a good look at the sky in the morning ! This distrust plays over in the 'mind' of 

the public into ANY official pronouncements !   


    Now, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that major earthquakes can be predicted at any particular 

time, in spite of very considerable efforts having been made to predict them, so the opinion that there 

was NO SIGNIFICANT DANGER seems to have been PERFECTLY CORRECT. You may have a 

geological fault line which has historically failed every 50 years 'on average', 

but you CAN'T predict the day, the week or the year when this will happen. And 

you CAN'T install devices to measure rock stresses down to 100 miles underground !
     In largely protestant countries, we don't tend to believe the myth that ANYONE is INFALLABLE ! 


    What is the 'chain of command' and relationship of authority between the various Italian departments 

involved, please ? I would have expected the seismologists to have been an advisory committee and 

the Defence Department to have been responsible for taking decisions and interacting with the public. 

Have any members of the Defence Department been prosecuted, please ? The seismologists are 

VERY UNLIKELY to have been patrolling the streets of D'Aquila themselves telling people not to worry 

and to go home ! 

    Have any transcripts of the trial been released yet ? My point is that we do not seem to have any 

firm information yet on who said what to whom and when. 
    I understand from the TV recording that the official seismology body in Italy may have been giving 

some dubious 'opinions', but the scope of this legal action against the members seems to be quite 

disproportionate. It could be reasonable to prosecute the head of a committee if he has failed to carry 

out his duties, or has done them corruptly. 

    However, the nominally controversial 2008 statement by Professor Boschi that there was no risk to 

a gas storage project at Mirandola from foreseeable earthquakes could well be correct. Gas storage 

may be done in porous, dome shaped rock formations many hundreds of metres underground which 

are capped by impervious rock. So long as a fault line does not intersect this dome, it should not be 

damaged by quakes, even ones which may flatten local buildings. 

    Explaining this to the general public may be a bit more difficult. 
     You say "He (Boschi) said all measurement was made and no danger was expected for that area 

EVEN IF A MAJOR QUAKE COULD OCCUR". Now a major quake would certainly be expected to 

damage buildings, so the statement clearly refers to the gas storage dome underground.

    In May 2012 there was a major quake resulting in thousands of damaged houses and >10 fatalities.
I have not heard of any update on this.
     I will be very interested to hear the result of the appeal against the prosecution. The logic of this conviction  

escapes me. I doubt if Mauro's arguments can be upheld. 


    Regards,


    Chris Chapman



Il 22/10/2012 22:23, Antonio Moura ha scritto:
> I totally agree with Steinar. I am think that part of what is essential
> is to strive to make clear of what really is the probabilistic nature
> and the uncertainty associated with such natural phenomena. Lawyers and
> judges and general public sometimes have a great lack of knowledge in
> Scientific matters and the little science they can grasp is of a
> Deterministic, 2+2=4, nature. In Portugal two Scientists published an
> interesting book called "How to Talk to Reporters without being on the
> Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" ... I think this also should apply to
> lawyers and such "species" alike  .. However I did not expect this type
> of judgement from a country with such a tradition in seismology and
> science. I guess that having an "escape goat" in certain troubled times
> must speak higher.
>
> Rui Moura

As a preface to a talk/podcast by Michele Calvi earlier this month USGS members at the seminar were told not to publicly talk about the court case in Italy in front of the camera.....interesting???

PSN-L Email List Message