It appears that the Italian courts believe that they are able to "devine" when earthquakes hit. This must be true since they convicted scientists and sentenced them to 6 years in jail for not getting it right. Here is the link.

 

I'm not sure "when" was the issue. From the article, it seemed to be more about the scope of potential damage that they underestimated.

 

I am not familiar with any scientific study that can produce a potential when or strength of an earthquake. I find the ruling mind-boggling.

 

Ken, there is quite a bit of science and experiential knowledge as well as testing data about the damage to be expected, assuming the strength of an earthquake.

 

ok for the record:
I'm not a geologist. but if anyone asks, really bad things can happen in an earthquake. you should all move into a tent in a field away from any objects that could fall.
but only if it's warm enough that you won't catch a cold because I'm not a meteorologist or a doctor and something bad could happen if you get sick.
Life is full of risk, you're on your own.
there I said it. any subsequent comments should be considered the ramblings of an unqualified kook.


The scientist were in a no win position, if they say run away and nothing happens, they get accused of spreading hysteria.
If they take a cautious approach they get arrested, tried and thrown in jail.
I do follow earthquake sciences when I can. There have been some cool ideas that looked really promising.
Based on the World series quake, ULF and ELF radios waves seemed to be a dead nuts on pre-cursor.
The only problem was no one could re create it in any other quakes.

Rock has this uncanny characteristic of being different all over the world.
So the failure mechanisms are different to.

 

^^ ...and "the scope of potential damage" would vary from one structure to another, and it's ability to withstand the earthquake along with it's proximity to the epicenter. Perhaps they should imprison the structural engineers who designed the failed structures, or the regulatory agencies who established the inadequate seismic zone building codes for the area...or the lack thereof.

The "science and experiential knowledge as well as testing data" you speak of is basically information gathering. The data is used to aid in seismic design providing safer structures during an earthquake. However, an earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times larger, and corresponds to an energy release ~30 times greater than one that measures 4.0. Since this energy increases exponentially up the Richter scale, there is little chance of any seismologist ever being able to forecast the actual extent of earthquake damage.

I've lived in Southern Calif for the past 20+ years, and we have never been forewarned of any earthquake, including the 6.7 (Ms) Northridge earthquake in 1994 which caused major damage and destruction to concrete bridges. However, we know the "Big One" is coming, and it's just a matter of time. or

 

DC is still in recovery mode, and will be for quite awhile, from the earthquake we had. It was shocking the amount of damage it did, not being all that strong. The Washington Monument is closed for the foreseeable future and the National Cathedral sustained major damage. No prediction as far as I know.

 

I saw this in the news and was quite surprised. I had no idea earthquake prediction was anywhere near an exact science.

 

Jerry, here is the part of the article I focused on:

"A 6.3 strength earthquake struck L'Aquila, in Italy's Abruzzo region at 3.32 a.m. on April 6, 2009, wrecking tens of thousands of buildings, injuring more than 1,000 people and killing hundreds of others in their sleep.

At the heart of the case was whether the government-appointed experts gave an overly reassuring picture of the risks facing the town, which contained many ancient and fragile buildings and which had been partially destroyed three times by earthquakes over the centuries.

The case focused in particular on a series of low-level tremors which hit the region in the months preceding the earthquake and which prosecutors said should have warned experts not to underestimate the risk of a major shock."


I did not read that as a charge that they failed to predict an earthquake or even the strength of a particular earthquake. Rather, it seems they were accused of underestimating the risks that the town was facing. Obviously, this was not a town of strip malls or office buildings built in the past 2 years after testing of the soil's liquefaction and following the 2009 edition of the International Building Code. It was a town of many "ancient and fragile buildings" that had recently experienced a number of tremors.

I don't know what these scientists were asked to do. What I do know is that experts can research an area and reach some conclusions about the liklihood of a quake of a certain strength, plus one standard deviation, and then look at the structures and provide a damage projection for the 60% probability and the 90% probability earthquake. Again, I don't know what these six were asked to do, but other experts can look at the original assignment and the work done and reach a conclusion as to whether the state experts met the standard of care for an expert in this field. If it is shown that the state experts failed to do the generally accepted analysis AND that any qualified expert should have reached a conclusion of a far greater risk, then maybe some of the folks who got hurt and the families of those who got killed have a point.

Take a look at your own chart. What if the state experts analyzed the town against an earthquake of 6.5 but failed to tell them about the level of damage recited on your chart for such a quake? I know I'm just making stuff up, but this type of thing happens. If it didn't, I'd be doing something else for a living.

 

I understand what you're saying Bill, and I agree there might be some question as to whether or not the experts did their job in communicating the potential risks for people inhabiting "ancient and fragile buildings"...if that was in fact their assignment. However, (IMHO) I think it's a case of ignoring the obvious. The people living in those fragile buildings are at risk even with the smallest tremor. And they should know that! Is the burden of responsibility on the "experts" to inform these folks of the obvious? If I live in Tornado Alley and my house gets demolished by an F-5 tornado, do I sue the weather man because he only predicted thunder showers? There are plenty of legitimate inequities in the world that deserve our time and attention. However, it's sad when our litigious society won't assume obvious personal responsibility, and we have to accommodate that weak link.

I'm aware of the 60%-90% probability design criteria for earthquake damage. However, much like the 100-yr flood design criteria, it's only a design guideline. Nature doesn't care, and when she unleashes her fury, it doesn't really matter. It's impossible (and cost-prohibitive) to build structures that can withstand the extremes, so we have to work within parameters that are averaged out and there is always a potential for failure.

So, I guess that when we gain knowledge and expertise that can impact public safety, we must assume responsibility for those who choose to ignore the obvious and could potentially be harmed if we don't warn them.

- Jerry