Mualchin said that seismic hazards were not properly assessed in L’Aquila. "Italy is one of the countries with the best seismic knowledge in the world. And yet look at what a 6.3 earthquake has done to this city. That knowledge was not used, and scientists are responsible for that. They were conscious of the high risk in the area, and yet did not advise the people to take any precaution whatsoever,” he said.
The problem is in part a scientific one, Mualchin said. The Italian scientists based their analysis on the frequency of earthquakes in the area. This is known as the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA), a method that is state of the art in many countries, but that, in Mualchin’s view, systematically underestimates seismic hazard because it does not consider extreme and rare events.
"Frequency is not important, what really matters is the largest earthquake we can expect, the strongest one that has happened in the past. Risk prevention should be based on that,” he said. This is the philosophy behind deterministic seismic-hazard analysis, a method that Mualchin says has been mostly abandoned by the scientific community, to the point that younger seismologists do not even learn about it.
"PSHA is a bad model California has exported elsewhere, and we see the results here in L’Aquila," he told Nature after the hearing. Mualchin worries that the new building codes approved in Italy after the L’Aquila earthquake show no improvement. "They never consider the worst-case scenario for any particular area, and this can lead to new disasters in the future”.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on February 16, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentWould the former chief seismologist for California's DOT voluntarily testify against himself if criminally indicted for his role in the collapse of highway structures that have killed many citizens over the past few decades?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, that chief seismologist is an expert in getting a free trip to Italy. I'm sure with his 20/20 hindsight he was able to see a lot of amazing sights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's imagine the following scenario: Dr. Mualchin is responsible for deciding on the evacuation of a seismically active area, which he does based on his rule (worst-case earthquake known); then, nothing much happens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould he then accept responsibility for the needless expense incurred by the evacuees?
One can't ask from science more than it can deliver, and to do so doesn't give you an excuse to take the scientists to court.
On the other hand, scientists must resist the endless media need for simplistic answers: if you're not sure, just say so.
A somewhat selective response to the problem. Is the newspaper that misquoted being prosecuted too? This is an inability to predict. What would have occurred if the prediction had been other wise? well after as couple of days, it is back to normal. Folks that live in these unstable areas are more aware of these problems than most. You ask experts because you want answers and we don't accept "we don't know". Heck we often don't accept answers we don't like. End result off all of this will be we add a layer of legal filtering to ensure the statements put out don't say anything at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is Italy we are talking about, the birthplace of corruption, the Mafia and religious despotism. They can not get the streets cleared of garbage and they are anxious about naturally occurring events?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this a way to stop all scientific based activities by the all powerful church in Italy. Perhaps their omnipresent, omniscient, Omnipotent god should be sued first.
That California seismologist just want to advocate his theory and quash the state-of-the-art theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the help of the court is a good choice...
My sentiments precisely, jtdwyer. Hey, now we can call
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison him to tell us when that "Big One" that's due any day
now in California is going to hit, no?!
The article states that this guy "Guido Bertolaso", the head honcho guy; is actually the one responsible for delivering the 'reassuring message" to the public; "regardless of the Scientist's opinions" - that the wiretapping investigators said they heard him say!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe already know this guy Bertolaso possesses the kind of character that'll throw somebody to the wolves in a heartbeat, because the article said that he originally had not been indicted; and conversely, was to appear as a witness against the others! When HE was really the one who had committed the dastardly deed of calling the shot to ignore what the scientists said, and to just issue "reassuring statements"!
He's your classic jerk - I've got descriptors for his kind that are far more befitting, but being a lady, I shall only think them - but you get my drift!
Providing the wiretapping investigators are morally grounded, it seems to me like they've got their man, since they want one so badly. It is ludicrous that they should even go any farther forward with prosecution against any of the scientists, now that
it has been made abundantly clear who the shot-caller was on reassuring the public.
How any sensible individual could think it's okay to hold anyone responsible for not issuing notification of the arrival date and time of an Earthquake anyway, is beyond me. A Hurricane; yes. An Earthquake; no. It's a ridiculous allegation, and it really gives rise to wonder what's really behind all that? The ultimate Fall-Guy stratagem.
De Bernardinis and the six members of the scientific panel have been indicted for manslaughter because their false reassurances prompted many people not to evacuate.
Guido Bertolaso, former head of the Department of Civil Protection and De Bernardinis’s direct superior had not been indicted and was originally expected to appear as a witness.
But a few weeks ago a wiretap revealed that he had apparently set up the meeting to convey a reassuring message, regardless of the scientists' opinion. He also seemed to be the source of the "discharge of energy" statement. He thus found himself under investigation and, at the beginning of the hearing, he was officially notified that he too may soon be formally indicted for manslaughter.
As the head scientist chose the false reassuring message and ordered his underlings to deliver it, he is responsible for the message.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut who is responsible for all those unreinforced masonry deathtraps in a quake-prone area? That would be the landlords, architects, engineers, contractors, politicians and appointees who decided quake retrofits were too costly. So 302 people died. I believe that's called murder for profit, or at least depraved indifference homicide. Too bad the government is too cowardly to prosecute the guilty millionaires, clerics and corporations. You can't put a church or a corporation in jail. Or a millionaire, for that matter.
But it's easy to persecute the scientists, who lack the deep pockets to defend themselves when systemic failures result in murder by cost-cutting.
If you are in an auditorium and yell FIRE when there is no fire you are held responsible for all the injuries/death that occurs in the mad dash to the door. Likewise if there is a fire and your alert saves everyone you are a hero. So who really knows the motivation for the chief scientist? Finding a person who can take the fall for your own lack of common sense is the disease of modern society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer must realize that a seismologist is not a civil engineer, pe. These are the professionals that design the structures we all drive on or under based on the environmental information derived from researching the geographical area.
Money, however can change any professional's morale code be they scientist or engineer.
Attention scientists who decide to take that 'extra job' (and money) and sit on a government board or committee:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the politician misrepresents your opinion(s) -
a. denounce it immediately (at same conference),
b. resign,
or
c. hold your own press conference, and tell the truth
otherwise, you may find yourself wrapped up in political muck.
More on this story (from the beginning) in the SSEC thread at Sapos Joint: http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=36665#p36665
1 million lives lost in the past 60 years - let's get down to business - Large EQs are predictable, to a fair (and usable) degree of accuracy, and will be improved when we start spending some money on R & D.