The defendants could have been more cautious in their message. One of them stated on TV that there was “no danger and explained that the tremors were a “favourable situation, that is to say a continuous discharge of energy. This was scientifically incorrect. While a series of tremors is not normally followed by a disastrous quake, most scientists agree that a seismic sequence increases rather than reduces the probability of one.
被告本可更谨慎地斟酌他们提供的信息。其中一名被告在电视上表示,拉奎拉“没有危险,并解释称,小震是“有利的,表明能量在持续释放。这在科学上是不正确的。尽管一系列小震之后并不总会发生灾难性地震,但大多数科学家认为,接二连三的小震加大、而非减小了发生灾难性地震的可能性。
There is clearly a case for the Italian authorities to review how the commission handled the situation. Whether politicians leant on the scientists in order to influence their decision should also be investigated. But convicting the scientists of manslaughter was the wrong decision. In the case of an earthquake, failing to communicate the risks appropriately to the population does not mean that the scientists are responsible for the deaths.
意大利当局显然有理由审查国家重大风险预测及防范委员会当时的应对情况。另外还应当调查一下,政客们当时是否胁迫过科学家、以影响他们的决定。但判处科学家犯有过失杀人罪的决定是错误的。在地震前未能恰当地提醒人们注意相关风险,并不意味着科学家就应对地震遇难者负责。
【FT社评:地震预测失误不等于有罪】相关文章:
★ 伊索寓言7
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15