Quatermass wrote: CrysaniaMajere wrote:
Quatermass wrote:More on the Italian idiocy...
you wanted me?
Not unless you suffer from a bad case of the idiocies.
let's not investigate this point..
Newspapers say they were accused not because they didn't predict it for sure, but because they didn't warn the people of the risks, instead they said to the people that there was no real risk so anyone stayed at home. Of course if they had launched an alarm and the earthquake hadn't done damages, they would have been accused of causing panic.
What I think is that they wanted someone to blame, and didn't want it to be the managers who that night were laughing on the phone happy that they were having a good lot of work coming up in rebuilding the city and that 'we've got to hurry, and get this job, you don't get earthquakes every day', nor they wanted it to be the man in charge of 'Civil Protection' (or however it's called in english) who I read on internet articles did call the experts to calm people because he didn't want to cause panic and who later said 'what should I know? It's their fault, not mine'. Although I read he's still under investigation.
Now newspapers say that's what you get for letting scientists decide instead of politicians.
I could quote another italian sismologist who 10 years ago reported that L'Aquila was a city at great risk of earthquakes because of what was under the city which was not solid stable rock and therefore it was needed to make the weaker buildings safe. "why are not being accused the majors, province presidents, region presidents, councillors who given their role have responsibilities in civil protection? "
TBH when I heard it I was like
because that's how things go, at least here.
Still, I'm not sure this is definite, there might be changes, who knows.
This is not about science, it's about politics, and we know it sucks.