It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An Italian court convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter on Monday for failing to adequately warn citizens before an earthquake struck central Italy in 2009, killing more than 300 people. Read more: www.myfoxdc.com...
The defendants were accused in the indictment of giving `'inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" about whether small tremors felt by L'Aquila residents in the weeks and months before the April 6, 2009, quake should have constituted grounds for a quake warning. Read more: www.myfoxdc.com...
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It begs the question though, if the scientist warned them of an impending large quake and caused hysteria or mass evacuations but failed to come through on their predictions, would the court have convicted them of disseminating false data or causing havoc?
After a series of tremors in late March, the committee met, after which a government official informed the press that “the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy,”
According to reporting in Scientific American’s sister publication Nature, minutes of the meeting show that the researchers were in fact much more circumspect, saying things such as “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out” and “because L’Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.”
Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
According to this Scientific American article, it was a government official who claimed that there was "no danger".
After a series of tremors in late March, the committee met, after which a government official informed the press that “the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy,”
I would struggle to believe that any scientists would claim that there is "no danger", and apparently they didn't.
According to reporting in Scientific American’s sister publication Nature, minutes of the meeting show that the researchers were in fact much more circumspect, saying things such as “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out” and “because L’Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.”
Personally, I think this case is ridiculous, and I really hope that the appeal process throws out the sentences laid on these scientists.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
So because a scientist, by all means of scientific data, has said there will be no meteor strike...yet one does strike....is that scientist culpable?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Name me a scientist; or anyone else; who can accurately predict earthquakes. Further, show me one who can predict earthquakes that can devastate.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
At least for the most part the system should have to overcome the evidence that they were in fact guilty of not predicting an event that has been proven to not be predictable as of current technology....
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Personally, I think this case is ridiculous, and I really hope that the appeal process throws out the sentences laid on these scientists.
Personally you attempted to make the case otherwise. What were the scientist to do? Answer my previous question that begs to be answered...