Reflections on the Trial of the "L'Aquila Seven"

Reflections on the Trial of the "L'Aquila Seven", and Its

Significance for the Earth Sciences

David Alexander University College London

NB: This presentation can be downloaded on your mobile phone from m.slideshare.net/dealexander

You may find what I have to say a bit

arrogant and possibly objectionable.

I don't care!

Disclaimer: it is not my intention to "hold the trial all over again"

or comment on the rights or wrongs of the sentence.

Main conclusion:- If some of the scientists who commented "authoritatively" on this trial and its outcome were

to apply the same levels of slapdash superficiality to their own work, science would be

seriously in disrepute.

"The charges against these scientists are both unfair and naïve."

"The basis for these indictments appears to be that the scientists failed to alert the population of

L'Aquila of an impending earthquake."

"It is manifestly unfair for scientists to be criminally charged for failing to act upon

information that the international scientific community would consider inadequate

as a basis for issuing a warning."

"Dr. Tom Jordan, the director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, told CBS News, 'This trial has raised huge concerns within the scientific community because here you have a number of scientists who are simply doing their job being prosecuted for

criminal manslaughter and I think that scares all of us who are involved

in risk communication.'" (CBS News, 22 October 2012)

"'It's a sad day for science,'" said seismologist Susan Hough, of the

U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Calif. 'It's unsettling.' That fellow seismic experts in Italy were singled out in the case 'hits you in the gut,'

Hough added." (WKYC News, http://www.wkyc.com,

"Italian court convicts 7 for no quake warning")

Scientists are thoroughly clannish: they band together to resist perceived external threats

• directed research project on Aquila quake, including UNIVAQ researchers

• know all the defendents personally and have worked with several of them

• talked at length to the consultants who prepared the basis for prosecution

• was a homeless survivor of 1980 quake.

My involvement

• did 3 years' research on Aquila deaths see

Room with a view....

I also investigated this case in L'Aquila:-

The people went back inside, and this is where they died.

My main conclusion:- "Events in L'Aquila after the 6th April 2009 earthquake can only be understood

by using political logic, which often diverges from common sense logic."

Alexander, D.E. 2010. The L'Aquila earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian Government policy on disaster response. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 2(4): 325-342.

Alexander, D.E. 2012. An evaluation of the medium-term recovery process after the 6 April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, central Italy. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions 11: 1-13.

Sabina Guzzanti

But what actually happened?

L'Aquila (AQ) Abruzzo Region

pop. 72,800

Historical city

The earthquake

03.32 hrs, Monday 6 April 2009 Magnitude: Mw 6,3 Duration: circa 25 sec. Acceleration on hard rock: 0,3g Acceleration on sediments: 0,7-1,0g Part of an earthquake swarm that began in October 2008.

Deaths: 308 (299) Injuries: 1,500 (202 serious, & 898 triaged) Homeless people: 67,000 Tent camps: 171 Tents: 5,700 (for 8 people each)

Gioacchino Giampaolo Giuliani amateur earthquake prediction scientist

Gran Sasso d'Italia

65 km

National Major Risks Commission L'Aquila crisis meeting, L'Aquila 31-3-2009

"Professor Barberi concludes that there is no reason for

saying that a sequence of low magnitude shocks could be considered the precursor

of a strong event."

Hon. Ignazio La Russa, Minister of Defence

David Alexander says earthquakes can't be

predicted, and he's one of the greatest living

earthquake scientists and works for the United Nations

I said* that the question of whether an earthquake can be predicted in the short term is irrelevant: because if there isn't the civil protection system to back it up with positive actions to protect the population, then the prediction can be positively damaging! *to Deutsche Welle

Scientists

Hazard

Evaluation

Administrators

Risk communication

Decision to warn

General Public

Warning

Protective action

The warning process

Organisational Social Technical

Bernardo De Bernadinis Enzo Boschi Mauro Dolce Claudio Eva

Franco Barberi Gian Michele Calvi Giulio Selvaggi

Crucial aspect: the violent foreshock of 00:30 hrs, three hours before the main

shock - people left their homes.

In Paganica the civil protection service sent around a loudspeaker van to reassure

people and tell them to go home and stop worrying. They did. Five died and

40 were seriously injured.

Weakest point in the prosecution's case: the link between official pronouncements

and people's behaviour that led to deaths and injuries.

Six years for each defendent.

Context: "the absence of information must be distinguished from the wrong information" - Dr Antonello Ciccozzi

Context: tension between the legislature and judiciary

Context: an assault on "The Caste"

Context: the Major Risks Commission has since behaved impeccably

• UK academic boycott of Israel

• "Crusading" against modern Islam in the Middle East

• others...?.

International reaction to the trial and sentence: analogies

Other scandals and trials are in the works

€1,427 per base isolator, €55,000 per building

A message to scientists: find out the whole story before pontificating to the mass media and authorities: in cases like L'Aquila, context is all important.

david.alexander@ucl.ac.uk