Comments on: Seismologists Charged with Manslaughter

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:38:52 +0000

Sonic – after reading more reports, it seems like it’s both. It is partly the fact that they did not predict the quake. It’s also that a technician did predict the quake, based upon bad science, but then just got (somewhat) lucky in his prediction. So while he was spreading unjustified fear, the seismologists tried to calm that fear with a better interpretation of the science – but then, as luck would have it, the quake struck. That seems to have generated the sense that the lack of reaction was the fault of the seismologists. But it stems from how the science can and cannot be used to predict quakes.

By: sonic

sonic — Tue, 31 May 2011 23:09:02 +0000

The reason for the trial is that, despite earthquake swarms that should justify a state of alert (as they have in the past), nothing was done. Apparently there was discussion to this effect before the announcement of ‘no worries’.

So, in essence, they are being tried for negligence.

The notion that they are being tried for not predicting the earthquake is not true.

http://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/geologia/forumntc/showAttachment.asp?id=4210

By: Joctrel

Joctrel — Tue, 31 May 2011 20:52:46 +0000

Dr. Novella wrote: “the more you warn the public, the more prepared they will be, but the more panicked they will be.”

I hope this isn’t true. I know one major narrative to come out of Japan recently was about how calmly everyone behaved during the tsunami, because they were hyper-prepared.

By: ChrisH

ChrisH — Tue, 31 May 2011 15:18:15 +0000

Actually, Ori, you are not that far off of reality. Seismologists are using GPS sensors to relay ground movement:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gps/

While they cannot predict earthquakes, it is just part of the gathering of information.

By: Ori Vandewalle

Ori Vandewalle — Tue, 31 May 2011 13:25:48 +0000

daedalus2u:

The answer is robots. A swarm of tiny, subterranean robots that can relay seismographic information up to scientists and computers. Totally ridiculous and implausible at present, but just one possibility for the future.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Tue, 31 May 2011 13:16:27 +0000

I have and idea for Jon Ronson’s next book:

‘The Men Who Blame Scapegoats’

By: Gallenod

Gallenod — Tue, 31 May 2011 12:57:37 +0000

I saw the same thing happen in England about 20 years ago. A massive storm swept across the island and caused damage to trees and gardens that will take the better part of a century to repair. And, soon after things calmed down, there was a similar witch hunt to hold meteorologists responsible for not properly predicting the storm and its severity.

Like that would have made a difference.

Sadly, humanity doesn’t seem to like being told that there is no certainty. People want science to behave like magic and explain everything without error or doubt. They want infallibility, and if they don’t get it they may scapegoat science the same way they did with witches centuries ago.

Ironic, neh?

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Tue, 31 May 2011 02:01:48 +0000

I am not saying it is impossible, but it is not something that it is reasonable to expect a straightforward solution to. We know it is highly non-linear. Non-linear problems are extremely difficult to model once they have more than a few parameters. Most earthquakes occur deep underground, this one occurred 9.46 km underground. To model and understand when the fault is going to slip, the actual state of the fault needs to be known. Unless they had equipment at the actual fault measuring what was going on, there is no credible way they could have predicted this.

There are reports of luminous phenomena, but what they are and how they relate to earthquakes is not known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake

These reports are anecdotes. Without knowing what is the physics behind them, it is hard to couple them to rock slip 9 km underground.

With weather forecasts, weather is happening in the atmosphere where there are measurements of what is going on. The atmosphere moves and to some extent the air that will be over a place on one day was somewhere else before and those motions are (to some extent known). There is no corresponding access to the faults that are building up strain and will eventually slip.

By: Nikola

Nikola — Tue, 31 May 2011 00:42:49 +0000

I agree. Insisting on unknowability is unwise in most domains, as in this one. However, that isn’t to say that the prospect isn’t *ridiculously* difficult.

In any case, this radon gas thing seems highly correlative but not very useful in predictions.

By: Ori Vandewalle

Ori Vandewalle — Tue, 31 May 2011 00:32:45 +0000

daedalus2u:

What you’re saying is true, certainly, but we’re still able to construct useful, if not complete, meteorological forecasts. All I’m saying is that I don’t believe geology is fundamentally different, and that as the science improves, we may be able to generate useful predictions about seismological phenomena.

It just seems a bit of an exaggeration to say that predicting earthquakes – an unqualified statement that does not speak to the quality of any particular earthquake prediction – is impossible.

Again, I’m really not trying to say that we should be able to or ever will be able to pinpoint the exact time and magnitude of any quake, or that scientists should be punished for incorrect predictions, or that any of the various pseudoscientific quake predictors that abound should be listened to. I just think throwing around the word impossible is a little much.