Links: GoQuestion 1Correct8.00 points out of8.00FlagquestionMy home ► MEA 101 (003) Fall, 2014 ► Module 4 ► Learning Journal 10  Natural hazards in the newsQUIZ NAVIGATIONFinish reviewStarted onWednesday, October 1, 2014, 10:49 AMStateFinishedCompleted onWednesday, October 1, 2014, 10:57 AMTime taken8 mins 39 secsMarks8.00/8.00Grade 4.00 out of 4.00 (100%)Read the article and answer the questions that follow.Italian scientists on trial over L'Aquila earthquakeSeven people went on trial for manslaughter Tuesday in Italy, accused of failing to predict anearthquake that killed more than 300 people in L'Aquila in April 2009.The seven  sixscientists from the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology and a member ofthe Civil Protection Agency  were members of a governmental panel that prosecutorsaccuse of giving a "rough, generic and ineffective assessment of the seismic risk."The seven members of a socalled "major risks" panel, published "inaccurate, incomplete andcontradictory information about the dangers of seismic activity undermining the protection ofthe population," prosecutors said.The first hearing Tuesday morning in L'Aquila's tribunal wasdevoted to technical matters and claims by injured parties.The city of L'Aquila has requested50 million euros ($68 million) in compensation. Only one defendant was in court, the vicepresident of the panel, Bernardo De Bernardinis. "I thought it was important to be here, notonly because this is my turf but also to underline the professionalism ... of the other publicofficers," De Bernardinis told reporters.The trial has attracted the attention of the scientific world.The American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS) wrote to Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano in June lastyear to express "concern" over the indictment of its Italian colleagues. "The charges againstthese scientists are both unfair and naive," the letter said. The basis of the indictmentsappears to be that the scientists failed to alert the population of L'Aquila of an impendingearthquake. However, the letter continues, "there is no way they could have done thatcredibly."Lawyer Marcello Melandri is defending Enzo Boschi, who was president of the NationalInstitute of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the time of the quake.Melandri denies that it's atrial against science, saying: "Professor Boschi simply said that the earthquake isunpredictable, that it could or it could not happen."You are logged in as Jonathan Kluger (Log out)MEA 101 (003) Fall, 2014 Geology I: Physical1The Civil Protection Agency had organized a meeting of the major risks panel in L'Aquila onMarch 31, 2009, amid concern among the city's residents over ongoing seismic activity.Afterthat meeting some members of the commission made reassuring statements to the press.Inparticular De Bernardinis said in an interview with a local TV station that the scientificcommunity was "reassuring" him, and that the numerous tremors were in some ways a goodthing, as they released seismic energy.The interview concluded with a joke. "Meanwhile, let'sgo and have a glass of wine," the journalist said. "Absolutely!" De Bernardinis replied.Six days later, the magnitude6.3 quake hit the city and surrounding areas, causing widedestruction and loss of life. Eugenio Carlomagno is among the citizens of L'Aquila to feel letdown by the panel."There are big responsibilities that this trial has to establish. No onealerted us, there were no evacuation plans that could have saved lives," he told CNN."It's nota matter of drinking a glass of wine, it's a matter of respecting rules."Source: CNN.com; September 10, 2011In your own words (and using complete sentences), what is thistrial about? What would be the biggest challenge associated with makingpredictions about the potential for a future earthquake? L’Aquila has many buildings that are hundreds of years old and ahistory of past earthquakes. If Raleigh were in a similar situation,who would you think should be responsible for determining apossible course of action following a series of small to moderatesized earthquakes?Rank the following from 1 to 7 (1 = not responsible; 7 = veryresponsible).The citizens. 5The scientists of the state’s geological survey. 6City and state government officials. 7Local news media. 1It seems to be about determining if the scientists who noticed the tremors before the quake, but did not alert the public should be held accountable for the resulting destruction and death.It is hard to predict how sever the earthquake will be, and predict the exact timing of said