blonde poker forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626

On the face of it, a truly astonishing jail sentence, though I haven't found what the risk commission original said. 


Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila.

A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter.

Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes.

The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people.

Many smaller tremors had rattled the area in the months before the quake that destroyed much of the historic centre.

It took Judge Marco Billi slightly more than four hours to reach the verdict in the trial, which had begun in September 2011.

...

In the closing statement, the prosecution quoted one of its witnesses, whose father died in the earthquake.

It described how Guido Fioravanti had called his mother at about 11:00 on the night of the earthquake - straight after the first tremor.

"I remember the fear in her voice. On other occasions they would have fled but that night, with my father, they repeated to themselves what the risk commission had said. And they stayed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14991654

"There is no scientific basis for making a prediction", said Dr Richard Walker of the University of Oxford.
...

"In the history of earthquake study, only one prediction has been successful", explains Dr Walker.

The magnitude 7.3 earthquake in 1975 in Haicheng, North China was predicted one day before it struck, allowing authorities to order evacuation of the city, saving many lives.

But the pattern of seismic activity that this prediction was based on has not resulted in a large earthquake since, and just a year later in 1976 a completely unanticipated magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck nearby Tangshan causing the death of over a quarter of a million people.

The "prediction" of the Haicheng quake was therefore just a lucky unrepeatable coincidence.

...

"Earthquakes are complex natural processes with thousands of interacting factors, which makes accurate prediction of them virtually impossible," said Dr Walker.

Why are they commenting on it if there is no way to predict it

They said that the probability of a large quake was low (that's how seismologists predict events, based on probabilities and not with absolutes that it will definitely happen or not) - but obviously that doesn't mean it won't happen.  The public/politicians don't understand probability.

because they were asked to.  

The seven defendants were members of a government panel, the Serious Risks Commission, tasked with assessing the risks after hundreds of low-level tremors had rattled the medieval city in the months before the earthquake struck. is in one of the links.

The big thing missing from the story is what was exactly said.  If they said that these events (the preceeding smaller tremors) don't necessarily lead to a big earthquake, there would be a reasonable chance some people would take undue reassurance from their statement.  Most people are very bad at understanding risk.

The prosecution accused them ".. of having provided an approximate, generic and ineffective assessment of seismic activity risks as well as incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information".  But if there is no way of accurately predicting an earthquake then there is little more you can do than provide something approximate and fairly generic?  I am instinctly of the view that it isn't obbviously the scientists who are misunderstanding the risks here.  
 

I'd drag the pope up on manslaughter charges as well, as he was obviously saying the wrong prayers.

What was said precisely is definitely key but I do find this whole thing very depressing.  It seems to me that the big philosophical battle of our times is that of maths/science on the one hand and emotion/belief on the other hand and it seems as though the latter is winning which shouldn't be surprising I suppose given how difficult it can be to understand the former in sufficient depth but shouldn't it be the role of governments to protect and nurture good practise in the former rather than to prosecute them in order to find scapegoats.

I'd be shitting my pants if I was Michael Fish.

For the geeks, there was quite a good program on chance on bbc4 I stumbled on last week. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00yh2rc/Tails_You_Win_The_Science_of_Chance/

There was a seismologist or similar on fairly early.  She said that somebody had sugested to her that she was going to drive to see her family in Los Angeles during the big aftershocks in the wake of the last big San Fransisco earthquake.  She said it was a really bad idea, as her chance of dying during the drive there was higher than her chance of been killed in any earthquake.    Don't know how much science there is in that, but it certainly rings true (though maybe not in the immediate afternath of a big earthquake??). 

Presumably the Italian courts are preparing charges against her right now.

I wasn't really a fan of that programme. It didn't really seem to say much and there were a few bits that I thought were misleading/wrong. I was hoping for something a bit more mathematical but it seemed to be dumbed down a bit so it'd be mainstream to me.