California Seismologist Testifies Against Scientists in Italy Quake Manslaughter Trial

A panel of seismologists who met just days before the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy are on trial over their reassurances to the public. Image: WOLFANGO VIA FLICKR UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS

The courthouse in L?Aquila, Italy, on February 15 hosted a highly anticipated hearing in the trial of six seismologists and one government official indicted for manslaughter over their reassurances to the public ahead of a deadly earthquake in 2009 (see?"Scientists face trial over earthquake deaths" and "Scientists on trial: At fault?"). During the hearing, the former head of the Italian Department of Civil Protection turned from key witness into defendant, and a seismologist from California criticized Italy?s top earthquake experts.

All those indicted took part in a meeting held in L?Aquila on March 30, 2009, during which they were asked to assess the risk of a major earthquake in view of the many shocks that had hit the city in the previous months. After the meeting, Bernardo De Bernardinis, deputy head of the Department of Civil Protection, said to the press: "The scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy," a statement that most seismologists consider to be scientifically incorrect. On April 6, 2009, a magnitude-6.3 quake hit the city, killing 309 people. 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.

Bertolaso was asked by the prosecutor to explain that telephone conversation. He defended himself by saying that by defining the meeting as a "media move," he was not trying to downplay risks but rather to put some order into the contradictory information that was reaching the citizens in those days. In particular, he referred to Giampaolo Giuliani?a laboratory technician and amateur seismologist who was alarming the population with claims that a major shock was coming?and to a newspaper article that had misquoted some Civil Protection experts and stated that the shocks would soon be over. The meeting, he said, was meant to make clear that both were wrong and that no deterministic prediction could be made.

As for the idea that the smaller tremors reduce the risk by releasing energy, Bertolaso insisted that he had heard it from scientists at the Italian National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), and that he had used the same phrase in the past without being corrected by any of his seismology consultants. Enzo Boschi, former INGV president and one of the defendants, has denied this. The issue will be clarified when Boschi takes the stand.

The hearing also included some true scientific debate when Lalliana Mualchin, former chief seismologist for the Department of Transportation in California, testified as an expert witness for the prosecution. In 2010, when news about the indictment broke, Mualchin was among the few experts who openly criticized?and refused to sign?a letter supporting the indicted seismologists signed by about 5,000 international scientists.

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=deeb15e8513bb8218bc32ff68cca0998

straight no chaser straight no chaser bcs standings bcs standings douglas fir jim boeheim jim boeheim