Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Italian quake: critics' logic is questionable

The manslaughter case against Italian scientists for inadequately warning local residents before the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy (Nature 477, 264–269; 2011), is not justified.

At the heart of this case lies one fact — the danger to L'Aquila residents at the time of the earthquake. More precisely, what was the chance that a particular individual would be killed in the subsequent 24 hours, given the frequency of low-magnitude tremors around that time and the best available science? That probability, even in L'Aquila's weakest class of building, was estimated at less than 1 in 100,000 on the night of the earthquake (T. van Stiphout et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L06306; 2010). The occurrence of many little earthquakes does not make the chance of a big earthquake very high.

Conventional wisdom suggests that roughly US$1 million needs to be spent on public-safety measures for each life that would be saved. It might have been wise to improve L'Aquila's at-risk buildings, particularly as it has been known for decades that many of them are too weak to withstand earthquakes.

But the hazard level in L'Aquila in the days before the earthquake was insufficient, by two to three orders of magnitude, to justify evacuation of even the weakest buildings. The scientists were right: sitting tight was a good recommendation and, in view of the low risk, all the published quotes from the seismologists were accurate.

The most troubling aspect is the complete absence of a quantitative assessment of risk among the people seeking to condemn the scientists. To critics, it makes no difference whether the likelihood of a magnitude-6.3 earthquake was tiny.

The critics' argument that a sterner warning should have been broadcast is based only on the fact that the event occurred, and so should have been foreseen. This logic seems to lie midway between Monty Python and Franz Kafka, and is terrifying to me as the seismologist responsible for monitoring the US Pacific Northwest, an area inhabitated by 10 million people.

See also: Italian quake: science rides politics

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to John E. Vidale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vidale, J. Italian quake: critics' logic is questionable. Nature 478, 324 (2011).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing