GNGTS 2013 - Atti del 32° Convegno Nazionale

Another result of this research focused on animal life in water. These animals were observed as having a sensitivity to earthquake at greater distances from the epicenter than other animals. For examples dead fish were seen in several mountain lakes, see Fig. 1, and fish were reported to not be biting baited hooks. Pet turtles were observed to be restless in water. Toads failed to mate, the most convenient period, at Lake San Ruffino, 70 km from L’Aquila (Grant et al. , 2010). Most of these observations were made before the earthquake, see Fig. 2. It need be remember that: 1) times before strong quakes were seldom described as being very calm (Tributsch, 1982), so it might be difficult to highlight premonitory anomalies; 2) human observational attention is not the same before and after a strong earthquake, which can disrupt a person’s life (Jho, 1997); 3) strong earthquakes can also modify animal behavior for a long time (Tributsch, 1982), changing their habits. These three considerations must be taken into account in order to reduce their influences. This could be done by introducing a further section in the questionnaires. Considerations 2) and 3) can explain the relative difference between human and animal anomalous observations following quakes. Regarding the consideration 2), humans can be disoriented regarding their feelings for long time. Whereas anomalous animal behavior becomes difficult to distinguish due to the consideration 3). These two considerations may account for the opposite relative difference between human and animal anomalous observations at uncertain times in Fig. 2. Observations during the quakes were less than 10% for each of the three groups. However, reports were more numerous for humans, due to thermal sensations, whereas they were very low, near 1%, for animals. Perhaps the latter was due to the earthquake roar that overwhelmed animal sounds, as well as a lack of attention on the part of witnesses during the shock Communication difficulties. During the administration of questionnaires to collect information on animal behavior, many times the Author was asked the question: why were we invited to go home because there was no danger? I was not able to answer this question for years. Then, one day I realised that there were problems in communicating the danger of the swarm, as reported by a few journals (Hall, 2011). What did these problems consist of? One could be the difficulty in communicating scientific data obtained by sophisticated tools which require a specific language, not always used by those who do research in this field. There could be another problem which concerns the discussion of earthquake thru probability. This is an epistemological approach. Epistemology deals with how to obtain information on reality, not on what reality is (ontology). Being so, when communicating earthquake studies scientists are not responding to the question on what the earthquake is, nor on when it will occur. They are describing on how to obtain information from past shocks, and this can create some difficulty for people asking for information. During the administration of questionnaires in L’Aquila, several times a stark question was asked: why were body bags prepared before the event at the barracks of the Guardia di Finanza but we were not warned of the danger? Recently I have crossed the territory of Colfiorito, between Umbria and Marche to collect testimonies on the 1997 earthquake. Surprisingly, several people asked the same question: why were body bags prepared in Foligno before the event but we were not warned of the danger? In fact, the Colfiorito seismic swarm was also active for several months before the main shock between the Marche and Umbria Regions. Moreover, in 2012, the Emilia earthquake offered further food for thought: after the first shock on May 20, ignoring the danger of the high likelihood of another strong shock suggested by seismic probability, industrial activities restarted in places already damaged by the first shock, resulting in the loss of more lives due to the May 29 shock. The economic damage. The State of Oaxaca, Mexico, is among the most highly seismic regions in the world. Large earthquakes, such as the shock which destroyed the town of Pinotepa Nacional on August 2, 1968 (M = 7.5), are not infrequent. The discovery by Ohtake et al. (1977) of a very clearly outlined seismic gap starting in mid-1973, followed by complete quiescence until the present time, was therefore believed as being highly significant. This was 73 GNGTS 2013 S essione 2.1