The heated responses to my speech, by an official of the local PD (Julie Petrilli) and a director of the INGV (Warner Marzocchi), deserve a reply, and this for the sake of clarification with respect to some misunderstandings and malpractice argumentation. This states that, if the processing of data on earthquakes is ovviamene task of geologists and seismologists, the discussion of the use of the same social issue is purely socio-anthropological, especially with regard to the risk that such information is going to be the raw material for the construction of cultural stereotypes.
Petrilli If he had read carefully he found that I wrote what I think is unacceptable to attribute the damage of the earthquake only factors of poor construction. "Exclusively" means that the poor construction is a factor, but not the only one. This is the central point, and not a matter of putting "heads in the sand" (the use of this expression I am surprised, because it seems more appropriate to describe the behavior that many local politicians have adopted towards the government for more than a year). If anything, I would be careful not to throw mud on him with our own hands, carelessly importing pseudo-scientific views that reinforce stereotypes that attack us for months. The shortage in the construction of buildings is a factor, but it is both the intensity of shaking: attribute everything to the poor quality of construction is not correct.
To better understand this point it is necessary to forcefully remind them that a cardinal principle of disastrologia, which tells us that the damage was caused, in fact, the combination of the physical intensity of natural event and the elements of social vulnerability (such as For example, the quality of buildings). This shows that the principle can not be reduced the result of a cataclysm only vulnerability factors, but - conversely - these are both a necessary causal factor that determines the final damage. Clear the vulnerability of a place can be a goal to clear the asymptotic risk, but occurrence, represent in excess of this vulnerability may be a way to diminish the measurement of the physical event and download any responsibility. In a scenario in which a scientific institution produced assurances that turned out to be catastrophic in fact, I'd be very cautious on this point. Maybe someone needs to download terremotino the stereotype of a number of responsibilities. In this way, you do not want completely omit the problem of the collapse, but we want to quantitatively traced back to a more realistic view of the peculiarities of the earthquake eagle instead of the sporadic collapses we should finish the recount as if the whole city to rubble, and begin to understand that, unfortunately, the city is largely unsafe, but almost always saved us from a terrible earthquake, which, as I wrote immediately after the earthquake, caused over 300 deaths but has also saved about 100,000 live.
The Student House is a scandal, but not the whole of L'Aquila Residence Halls . If we want to avoid being subjected to the allocation stereotypes that are convenient to those who must clean conscience because it encouraged us to stay in bed, without at the same time remove the problematic elements of the social representation of the earthquake, we should be able to tell us about accepting both these elements - the intensity and vulnerability - within the collective narrative of the event. L'Aquila suffered a concussion fearing but reported sporadic collapses . In several meetings were informed by experts that has accelerated Pettino average of 0.68 G with an amplification factor of 2, and this force as shaking effective (more than 1G) ranks as the worst earthquake in the Italian event of the last 95 years. This vision is far from stereotype of the city of shacks destroyed by terremotino representation from which citizens must defend themselves, are already circulating national imagination and which can be enhanced by pseudo-scientific models which can be a comparison of the omission of the variable distance from the epicenter.
Compared to prof. Marzocchi, I repeat that I based my criticism on two points, accurate, and which sets out again for clarity, as if he wants to fight back in my view, has a duty to abide by the ethics statements that I have expressed, not manipulate the area with low referential rhetorical devices:
1) it is inappropriate to compare two earthquakes omitting the parameter of the distance from the epicenter of the sites affected earthquake
2) the non-Mercalli scale measures the intensity of the movement but the damage on buildings
Marzocchi analysis asserts that it is "wrong", it does so within a frame communication very vehement, so that would lead the reader to think that I have taken statements totally unfounded. According to this position of stern ultimatum follows that reliable Marzocchi would consider such statements as:
1) it is appropriate to compare two earthquakes omitting the parameter of the distance from the epicenter of the earthquake affected areas of
2) the Mercalli scale measures the intensity of the movement
Sure, he's done on the first point then secretly gives me reason to say that "the epicentral distance can be important." It would be nice to understand what he thinks might be important, since any model is built based the definition of variables and the definition of discovery. So Marzocchi, while blatantly offended, acknowledges that the analysis of Welsh geologist omits a variable, but it is not clear how relevant this is. I suspect that the relevance of the variable "distance" in the comparative assessment between two earthquakes is more important than the risk of distorting the comparison, giving a thumbnail of the intensity of the earthquake Aquila. This trend towards the reduction in the intensity of the earthquake Aquila was often practiced - from the magnitude - and this is confirmed by the same Marzocchi, declaring that the earthquake in Haiti would be 30 times more "great" of the Eagle, whereas the difference is 11. The habit of filing certain data in one direction is in itself a given, a worrying fact from a socio-anthropological point of view. It seems that some scientists are working out the use of the file, perhaps in view of future practical applications of this tool.
Regarding the second question, the one on the Mercalli scale, Marzocchi answer me climbing over the referent of my statement, he argues that my criticism is "wrong" only argue that this scale is "calibrated to" classify "the damage to buildings' but is also used "to produce real-time probability of damage scenarios. " The question of the intensity of movement is not even mentioned. Probably I have not heard, but I do not think a good example of that "quality of scientific information" that Marzocchi recommends.
However, I have the impression that the hassle and concern of the manager derives not so much by the value of my analysis, but the fact that my speech would follow "a year or more international criticism of the scientific world." It seems to me that the real sticking point is this. First of all I would like to point out that the criticism in question did not object generically as the "science", which I hope the manager does not should subsume in full, but most of the specific context of the quality of analysis produced by the Commission Major Hazards, which is part of the INGV. In this respect, then I would be wary of complaining about alleged "arrogance" and "offenses". This is because the impression is widespread that some opinionated nonsense cloaked in (pseudo) scientific factors but from a disastrous series of assurances, "the very real hurt of over three hundred dead. Understanding the formula disastrologia I mentioned above can help you understand that, since the damage from the disaster also necessarily depend on the social vulnerability, this factor can be possibly increased by scientists who, in certain circumstances, produce falsely reassuring message. O Marzocchi took the opportunity to give to understand that guilt was only the reporters who gave the bad press?
Here there is no space to continue, however - as I have already dealt with the issue of "assurances disastrous" - I reserve the right to go elsewhere in detail on the subject, just take some passages of the text Marzocchi now I could not discuss, but which raise serious doubts about the risks of enslavement of a (pseudo) science to political and ideological forms of control.
L'Aquila 14/9/2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment