Quote NO...the seismologists and officials of the Civil Protection Department issued a statement suggesting that ongoing tremors didn’t indicate that a larger quake was imminent. The problem, according to the prosecution, was that this statement (falsely) reassured people and thus they didn’t evacuate and 309 people lost their lives.
Today, the Italian judge (in L’Aquila) ruled that the seismologists and government official can be held liable for not telling people to evacuate.'"
[urlhttp://www.earthmagazine.org/article/hazardous-living-italian-seismologists-tragically-convicted-manslaughter[/url
from reading around there seem to have been four main factors:
1. Earlier, smaller shocks - and the question whether or not these should have been interpreted as precursors to a big quake. The answer, the world over, is a firm and unequivocal "NO" - the indisputable fact is that smaller shocks are NO predictor. There may be more, there may be bigger, or there may be none.
2. A local nutter who had been driving round telling people to evacuate as a quake was on the way. (He has a quack method of "prediction" by measuring escaping radon gas). The authorities were it seems wanting to pour cold water on his claims and "re-assure" residents. As an aside, it is said that if the people in the specific areas he was warning had evacuated, they would have left what turned out to be a safe area and into what turned out to be the quake damaged area.
3. The statement that statement that ongoing tremors didn’t indicate that a larger quake was imminent. Which they didn't. But obviously when ther then was a quake, people are saying if they had said there might be a quake, we'd have got the hell out. Well, there might be a quake, Any day. Anywhere. The statement was 100% accurate.
4. A remark made to the press by a local official which was positively wrong - he for some reason after the meeting of scientists pronounced an opinion to the media that the smaller shocks were a good sign, as these were releasing energy, and thus suggesting that reduced the risk of a big quake. Which was bollox. But never left the lips of a scientist. The same official suggested everyone went home and had a glass of wine.
Perhaps the soundest advice would be to say, sometimes a big quake does follow smaller shock, sometimes it doesn't, there's no way of knowing. Make your own assessment as to whether you want to sit it out.
There was clearly NO indicator as far as I can see that the scientists could or should have advised immediate evacuation. Had they done so, they would of course have been hailed as heroes, but entirely by accident. You may as well have tossed a coin. Had they caused a mass evacuation, but there had been no quake, they would no doubt be being sued for millions for having advised an evacuation when there was no scientific basis so to do.
The convictions are thus appalling, but nowhere near as ludicrous as that they were even considered in the first place. With the possible exception of the town official who does seem to have spoken with reckless bravura. But the conviction of the scientists is truly mad.
