GNGTS 2013 - Atti del 32° Convegno Nazionale

the first time that a forecast of a large earthquake was published in a scientific journal; this step seemed justified by the striking evidence presented by the Authors. The most probable characteristics of the forecast earthquake by were M = 7.5 ± 0.25 and precise interval of latitudes and longitudes. An occurrence time was not stated, but it was stated that the current seismicity gap was already substantially longer than the precursor times of the previous Oaxaca earthquakes . In speaking of the impending earthquake , the authors evidently believed the predicted shock to be imminent. In January 1978, two unknown people wrote to the President of Mexico announcing a destructive earthquake in the small town of Pinotepa, Oxaca on 23 April 1978. Consequently, 20% of inhabitants had decided to leave Pinotepa before April 23. The economic damage to the town from the 1978 forecast was evaluated to exceed the 1968 earthquake, M = 7.5 (Garza and Lomnitz, 1979). Today we need to consider the economic damage of a prediction. To limit such damage, a prediction needs to be well supported. As in the case of 1975 Haicheng earthquake in Cina, where the observation of many phenomena was used. This, however, would mean that other parameters are important in the study of the earthquake, and this is not liked by many scientists. The motivation can be found in changing the objectives of science: to obtain funds for research scientists need to pursue the logic of winning international awards. These awards are often achieved with the publication of works in “prestigious” journals. Thus, the search for prestige replaces the search for truth, from which science originated. This translates into the need for further studies in fields where a large number of good tools already exists, and where there is already a scientific interpretation that ensures incontrovertible results. This is to the detriment of those areas where research is just beginning. Conclusions. In the months and years that have passed since the L’Aquila earthquake on April 6, 2009, several questions have been raised. To this regard for the answers it is necessary to investigate in the following directions: 1) what role did the estimated economic damage following earthquake forecasting, play in population warning? 2) what role did the estimated economic damage, play in the choice of signals to consider for population warning? Despite the difficulties of modern science in communicating the meaning of studies using the mathematical tools of probability calculation, even the probabilistic approach in the case of the earthquake clearly states that the likelihood of a major event during an earthquake swarm increases. Therefore, the difficulty of communicating the meaning of complicated probabilistic concepts may not be the main reason for the failure to communicate the risk, in fact the meaning is simple: the greater danger. Instead, the possible economic consequences of an alert are a motive enough to hinder the communication of risk to the population. Months before an earthquake it is possible to restructure a house to make it earthquake-proof, however, it is not possible to earthquake-proof an entire city. So, is it desirable to determine the conditions that could limit the economic loss due to a population warning? Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank the hundreds of “Abruzzesi” for contributing their valuable testimonials. Thanks goes to “la Protezione Civile Italiana”, “la Polizia Municipale di L’Aquila”, “i Vigili del Fuoco di L’Aquila” and “la Guardia Forestale” for their collaboration. References Chiarabba, C.; Amato, A.; Anselmi, M.; Baccheschi, P.; Bianchi, I.; Cattaneo, M.; Cecere, G.; Chiaraluce, L.; Ciaccio, M.G.; De Gori, P.; et al. The 2009 L’Aquila (central Italy) Mw = 6.3 earthquake: Main shock and aftershocks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, doi:10.1029/2009GL039627. de Liso,G.; Fidani, C. and Viotto, A.; 2013: Unusual Animal Behaviour before Earthquakes and Multiple Parameter Monitoring in Western Piedmont. Animals, accepted. Diodoro Siculo, Book XIV, 48-49. Fidani, C.; 2010: The earthquake lights (EQL) of the 6 April 2009 Aquila earthquake, in Central Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 967-978. Fidani, C.; 2011: The Central Italy Electromagnetic Network and the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: observed increases in anomalies. Geosciences, 1, 3-25, 2012. 74 GNGTS 2013 S essione 2.1