Earthquakes 2011

[Palehorse]

I'm thinking that ring of fire may be spreading in the next few years. There's an awful lot of activity in areas that rarely see any as well, and that tells me the plates are shifting a lot more. Just a matter of time before that fault down Evansville way gets enough pressure on it to "burp" and really shake things up in the mid section of this country. And that is going to get VERY ugly when it happens. . .

That bridge connecting Louisville to Indiana could be a casualty, as well as those bridges in Evansville! I'm talking Mothman II!

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php

The above is a link to the last time the New Madrid fault burped. . .

[Palehorse]

Well since you're into prognostications, how about this baby?    

Yeah, yellowstone will kill yah but it is somewhat a lot more "expected" than the New Madrid is.

Those volcanoes start erupting in yellowstone though, it'll be lights out from there to points east. . . 

My thoughts are that when New Madrid starts burping then ol' Yaller will be next.

[Locutus]

For those unaware about my previous post, I was referring to the supervolcano that lies beneath Yellowstone National Park.  Those geysers are nice to look at, but what lies underneath is a behemoth. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

[Locutus]

Yeah, yellowstone will kill yah but it is somewhat a lot more "expected" than the New Madrid is.

Those volcanoes start erupting in yellowstone though, it'll be lights out from there to points east. . . 

My thoughts are that when New Madrid starts burping then ol' Yaller will be next.

Quite possibly.  I wonder what percentage of visitors to Yellowstone, or residents that live within that circle of devastation, know that they're on top of a ticking time bomb. 

[Locutus]

So many people don't understand where those geysers come from.  They just keep snapping away with their cameras completely unaware of what lies beneath. 

[Palehorse]

Quite possibly.  I wonder what percentage of visitors to Yellowstone, or residents that live within that circle of devastation, know that they're on top of a ticking time bomb.

Oh indeed. I suspect many of them are ignorant of the potential for a geological event of historic magnitude taking place while they're out there. But me, I paid attention in Earth Science class in grammar school and asked a whole lot of questions. Geology interested me even back then, but not enough to obtain a formal education in the science. However thanks to the friends I have obtained along my life path, I do have a rather nice number of degreed geologists within my circle of friends; and I have and continue to pick their brains from time to time.

It's just a matter of time before these time bombs go off again, and predicting when is not an ability science has obtained as of yet. (Althought the masses seem to like to think so). 

[Locutus]

It's just a matter of time before these time bombs go off again, and predicting when is not an ability science has obtained as of yet. (Althought the masses seem to like to think so). 

The Italian court system seems to think so too. 

[Palehorse]

The Italian court system seems to think so too.

Yeah. . . as long as thinking so presents an opportunity to bolster their revenue streams that is. 

[Y]

The article states that they were convicted because they "didn't adequately communicate risk."  That's bothersome to me because calculating earthquake risk is extremely difficult, especially if one wants to get into the specifics of exactly when one is going to occur.  For example, there is earthquake risk in the Pacific Northwest.  It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when one is going to strike.  What legal burden (especially criminal liability) should a geologist or vulcanologist have when they don't (and can't) predict with any certainty exactly when an earthquake is going to occur, where its epicenter along a fault line may be, and how many people may be affected as a result?

While I agree that not all of of the details are likely included in that article, the overall concept just doesn't make much sense as presented in the article.

I agree, but the devil is in the details.  I want to know the specifics of what the scientists did say and what they knew and how/why it wasn't communicated properly.  That's what appears the verdict was based on.  Without that information, I can't even begin to form an opinion as to whether the verdict is justified or not.  If the scientists worked for the government in the capacity of looking for threats and warning both the government and the populace, the law usually sees a duty/obligation which, if the scientists failed in the performance of that duty/obligation, would make them liable.  The issue is more complicated than it appears, and the article doesn't even begin to address the nuances of the situation.  In fact, to me, it appears to be written more as taking a position than an informative article.

[Locutus]

I'll have to look when I get a chance tomorrow, and see if there's more specific information available on the case.  I agree that it would be interesting to know more. 

[Y]

The biggest worry to me about the New Madrid Fault is if it opens up the fault lines going north to the Great Lakes to the point that water shifts south across Indiana as previously in Indiana's geological history.

[Palehorse]

The biggest worry to me about the New Madrid Fault is if it opens up the fault lines going north to the Great Lakes to the point that water shifts south across Indiana as previously in Indiana's geological history.

Exactly. Swampland. . .

[Y]

I'll have to look when I get a chance tomorrow, and see if there's more specific information available on the case.  I agree that it would be interesting to know more.

[Y]

Exactly. Swampland. . .

Or a great flood.   

[Locutus]

A quick perusal indicates that all those sentenced were former members of Italy's so-called "Great Risks Commission" whose formal name is the Civil Protection Department.  The FAQ of their website is in English and is located at the link below.  Perhaps the devil is in the details and what their responsibilities are/were under Italian law. 

http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/jcms/en/rischi.wp

An excerpt states:

For civil protection purposes, risk is the possibility that a natural or man-made phenomenon may cause damage to the population, inhabited and production areas and infrastructures in a given area in a certain period of time.
The concept of risk is linked not only to the capacity to calculate the probability that a hazardous event may occur, but also to the capacity of defining the damage caused. Risk and hazard are not the same thing: hazard is the calamity that may strike a certain area (the cause), the risk refers to its possible consequences, in other words the damage that may be expected (the effect).

For concrete assessment of a risk therefore, it is not enough to know the hazard, but it is also necessary to carefully estimate the exposed value, in other words the assets in the area that may be affected by an event.

Risk can therefore be expressed by the formula: R = H x V x E

H = Hazard: the probability that a phenomenon of a certain intensity occurs in a certain period of time, in a certain area.
V = Vulnerability: vulnerability of an element (people, building, infrastructures, businesses) is the potential for damage following vibration caused by an event of a certain intensity.
E = Exposure: or Exposed value: is the unit number (or "value") of each of the elements at risk in a given area, like human lives or inhabited areas.

Italy a geologically young country. This "youthfulness" derives from the particular dynamics of the country, at a high risk of natural calamities, from earthquakes to volcanic eruptions. In addition to natural phenomena there are also those caused by man, often linked to bad territory management.