The Volcano Alert Level (VAL) system, standardized by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2006, is meant to save lives and keep citizens living in the shadow of an active volcano informed of their current level of risk.As you can imagine, people are a little bit angry that science is ruining their investments and they want some accountability or for people like you and me to pay them money so they can continue to live on the volcano, etc.
A new study published in Risk Analysis suggests that, when an alert remains elevated at any level above "normal" due to a period of volcanic unrest, it can cause a decline in the region's housing prices and other economic indicators. Because of this, the authors argue that federal policymakers may need to account for the effects of prolonged volcanic unrest -- not just destructive eruptions -- in the provision of disaster relief funding.
A team of geoscientists and statistical experts examined the historical relationship between volcano alerts issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and regional economic growth for three of the country's most dangerous volcanoes: Washington State's Mount St. Helens, Hawaii's K?lauea, and California's Long Valley Caldera.
They analyzed the effect of VALs and their predecessors (such as hazard alerts and volcano alerts) on local housing prices and business patterns over a 42-year period, from 1974 to 2016. The economic indicators used in the analysis included annual housing price, number of business establishments per 1,000 square kilometers, the number of employees per 1,000 inhabitants, and payroll per employee.
The team used econometric models to observe economic indicator trends during times when an increase in volcanic activity above "normal" led to a public alert. "Signs of volcanic unrest include ground deformation, rising C02 emissions, and increased earthquake frequency," says Justin Peers, East Tennessee State University. Both lower and higher alert level notifications were shown to have short-term effects on housing prices and business indicators in all three regions. The most significant negative impacts were seen for California's Long Valley Caldera area from 1982-83 and 1991-97. Home to Mono Lake, Mammoth Mountain, and the very popular Mammoth Lakes ski area, this complex volcanic region has experienced prolonged episodic unrest.
This fits neatly in with the other People's Popular Front for Forking Science
Six seismologists accused of misleading the public about the risk of an earthquake in Italy were cleared of manslaughter on 10 November. An appeals court overturned their six-year prison sentences and reduced to two years the sentence for a government official who had been convicted with them.The somewhat frightening thing is that this can now happen so easily right here in the United States because our educators have misraised, misinformed and lied to generations of young children who have now grown up believing that mankind alone is destroying our climate and world and is responsible for things like warming, cooling, cyclones, tornados, albinos, pineapple pizza and other horrible things like that. You can see it in the midwest where a judge in downtown Somaliaville, Minnesota is attempting to find enough civilians uncorrupted by the endless stories about how cops killed a black man in their nasty little town, to judge those cops and find them guilty of murder.
Deadly Italian quake strikes 40 kilometres from L’Aquila. The magnitude-6.3 earthquake struck the historic town of L’Aquila in the early hours of 6 April 2009, killing more than 300 people.
The finding by a three-judge appeals court prompted many L’Aquila citizens who were waiting outside the courtroom to react with rage, shouting “shame” and saying that the Italian state had just acquitted itself, local media reported. But it comes as a relief to scientists around the world who had been following the unprecedented case with alarm.
“We don’t want to have to be worried about the possibility of being prosecuted if we give advice on earthquakes,” says seismologist Ian Main of the University of Edinburgh, UK. “That would discourage giving honest opinion.”
The scientists had ended up in court as a consequence of botched communication in a highly stressed environment. In the months before the major earthquake struck, the region around L’Aquila had been subject to frequent, mostly low-magnitude tremors, known as seismic swarms. Residents were confused and increasingly alarmed by public statements made by a local amateur earthquake predictor, who said that he had evidence of an impending quake — although geologists dismissed his methods as unsound.
A commission of experts met on 31 March 2009 to assess the scientific evidence and advise the government. According to the prosecution, a press conference after that meeting — attended by the acting president of the commission, volcanologist Franco Barberi of the University of Rome ‘Roma Tre’, and by government official Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy director of the Italian Civil Protection Department — conveyed a reassuring message that a major earthquake was not on the cards.
Moreover, in a television interview recorded shortly before the meeting but aired after it, De Bernardinis, who is now president of the Institute for Environmental Research and Protection in Rome, said that “the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy” during the seismic swarms.
As a consequence, according to the prosecution, when the earthquake struck on 6 April, 29 people chose to stay indoors instead of stepping outside as they otherwise would have done, and died as their homes collapsed. All seven members of the expert commission were found guilty of manslaughter in October 2012, after a 13-month trial that transfixed the international scientific community. (A Nature editorial criticized that verdict.)
In addition to De Bernardinis, Selvaggi and Barberi, the other defendants were Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Rome; Claudio Eva, an Earth physicist at the University of Genoa; Mauro Dolce, head of the seismic-risk office of the Civil Protection Department in Rome; and Gian Michele Calvi, director of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering in Pavia.
The appeal ruling was the result of a 30-day trial that started on 10 October in the L’Aquila courtroom, before a three-judge court. Over the course of six hearings before the appellate court in L’Aquila, the scientists’ attorneys argued that no clear causal link had been proved between the meeting and the behaviour of the people of L’Aquila. They also argued that the scientists could not be held accountable for De Bernardinis’s reassuring statements, and that the seismologists’ scientific opinions were ultimately correct.
“The only useful thing that can protect us from earthquakes is the seismic hazard map of a country,” said Selvaggi in a spontaneous statement he made during the final hearing. “We showed a map where L’Aquila is purple, which means the highest hazard. That is what I said on 31 March 2009, and I would say the same thing today.”
The reasoning behind the verdict is not yet known, and the judges can take up to three months to publish it. Selvaggi says that the appeals judges agreed that the scientists had broken no law. But it is not clear why De Bernardinis was considered differently. He was acquitted of the manslaughter charges in 16 cases, but not for the other 13.
Public prosecutor Romolo Como told the press that he had expected the judges to reduce the sentences, but not to “put all the blame on De Bernardinis and the civil protection”.
The ruling of the appeals judge can still be overturned. Lawyers for the families of the deceased have announced that they will challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome, the country’s court of last resort. That court could invalidate the findings and call for a retrial.
I cannot see how a change of venue was not sought and I cannot imagine any jurors willing to objectively view the event and all the evidence and attempt to determine any other verdict than guilty because they know the squalid remains of their town and many other nasty places will all erupt in flames, violence, looting, arson and murder if they don't find the cop(s) guilty. It doesn't help that the officials in charge of that nasty shitty town released the announcement that the city had settled with the family of the dead man in a $27 million judgement during jury selection.
Naturally it will all come to it's first head sometime around the beginning of summer and the retrial will ruin the fall. It really is just one damned thing after the other now. I can hardly wait for China to invade Taiwan, North Korea to drop a nuke on Biden's watch and for the American military currently occupying the national capital, to collapse from internal dissent as they hold witch hunts in an effort to get rid of people who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
On that note, you definitely don't want to find yourself all alone downtown in one of those nasty cities or in an urban mall when the verdict comes down if by some miracle a juror holds out and the railroad doesn't proceed to immediately stuff the cops in jail for murder. It's not going to be pretty and it won't be safe. Situational Awareness is your friend. Start practicing it now so you'll know what to look for in a few weeks.