Loading summary

Transcript15 lines

[00:01]
BBC Announcer
Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts
[00:13]
Ruth Alexander
hello and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Ruth Alexander. It's the fourth anniversary of an earthquake which devastated the city of L' Aquila in Italy and made headlines around the globe.
[00:26]
BBC World Service Reporter
World Update from the BBC. Coming up, a powerful earthquake hits central Italy. We'll have the latest from rescue workers.
[00:35]
Ruth Alexander
More than 300 people were killed. Natural disasters are always shocking, but this incident became extraordinary. Six scientists and an official were put on trial for failing to give proper warnings. Before the disaster, 5,000 scientists around the world signed an open letter to the Italian president saying there was no way the accused could have predicted. There was a feeling that science itself was being put on trial. But in October, the seven were convicted.
[01:07]
News Reporter
A court in Italy has jailed six scientists and a government official for manslaughter because they'd underestimated the risk of an earthquake. The seven received sentences of six years
[01:17]
Ruth Alexander
each because in the end, the case wasn't about the scientists ability to predict earthquakes, but how well they communicated the risk. They met to discuss a series of tremors that had been occurring, concluding that a large earthquake was unlikely, but that the possibility could not be excluded. However, in a press conference, one expert said the situation was normal and citizens were told there was no danger. In the trial's closing statement, the prosecution quoted one of its witnesses whose father died in the earthquake. He said his parents were afraid and would normally have left their home, but had decided, on the basis of the expert's reassurance, to stay. The scientists are appealing their convictions and their sentences were viewed with alarm by other statisticians and scientists. At the time of the verdict, we spoke to David Spiegelhalter, professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University in the uk.
[02:12]
David Spiegelhalter
It seems to me this is a triple tragedy. Obviously we shouldn't forget the terrible case of 300 people that died there, and that's the main thing. But now there's been this additional tragedy of these seismologists being prosecuted for large fines and ludicrous six year sentences. But there's the chance of a third tragedy, which is just the withdrawal of the scientific community from engagement. I mean, who's going to be a seismologist in Italy now?
[02:36]
Ruth Alexander
But almost six months on, it seems the opposite has happened. Scientists and officials are sending out data and alerts on tremors on a regular basis. But how useful is this? Danny Mitzman reports from one of Italy's earthquake prone regions.
[02:51]
BBC World Service Reporter
It's a different kind of aftershock. As Francesca Maffini from the Civil Protection Department explains, it's not the verdict itself, it's the very fact they were put on trial. She says it's inevitable that scientists are now erring on the side of caution when informing decision makers like them. If the risk is between zero and 40% today, they'll tell us it's 40. Even if they think it's closer to zero, they're protecting themselves, which is perfectly understandable. Seismic areas are now subject to a sort of Post Aquila paradox, the authorities feeling obliged to predict the unpredictable. Everyone knows you can't predict an earthquake, says Ann Thornley Bennett. So why on January 31 did she decide to evacuate when the local council sent out warnings of a major quake due to strike overnight? We just went along with the mania. SHE SIGHS when you've got little ones, well, if anything did happen, you'd never forgive yourself. Anne and her husband live in the picturesque but highly seismic Garfagnana region of Tuscany. For a week, they'd been experiencing constant tremors and aftershocks of up to 3.8 on the Richter scale. One day, the kids were even evacuated from school without their coats. SHE GIGGLES Realising I'd appreciate that only a real emergency would see Italian children being sent outside coatless in winter. I wanted to know more about what Anne called the mania. The local populations never mass panicked like this before. It seems to be driven by the fact that modern technology has put the science into people's pockets. Everyone here in our town, Barga, was jittery, says Anne. They were all downloading these phone apps with tremor alerts. The atmosphere was really weird. In the past, information would be filtered by the likes of the Civil Protection Department and the mayor's office. But now you can get it directly from source through apps with names like Italy Earthquakes and did you feel the earthquake? Everyone wants to be able to measure earthquake risk, even though scientists can only ever calculate low probabilities. Some apps tell you every time there's a tremor, including the small ones that humans can't even feel, says Keen, a local artist. Mine says there were 15 today in Italy, two in this area. You get constant beeps in your pocket and in the end it becomes a psychosis. And it's a psychosis that's affecting the authorities just as much as the ordinary citizens. The events of the night of January 31 came from one single Twitter message, originating 13km away from Barga. Official warnings of potential strong tremors prompted a neighboring town to send a tweet advising its residents to sleep out of their homes. Within hours, the entire town centre had been evacuated, with 16 neighbouring municipalities, including Barga, caught up in the frenzy. Hospitals were emptied, schools were closed and turned into shelters. Thousands more slept in their cars. In the end, nothing happened.
[06:23]
Ruth Alexander
Danny Mitzman in Italy, where lives are being disrupted as people struggle to know how to respond to the very small risk of a very large catastrophe. Ian Main, professor of seismology and rock physics at the University of Edinburgh in the uk, who was also a member of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting, which reviewed the events in l', Aquila, says he can understand why the risk assessor's pendulum has swung the other way.
[06:48]
Ian Main
That's a cultural response most likely to the recent court case. Obviously, the authorities are going to be very conservative. If I was a seismologist in Italy, I would probably be very conservative myself in issuing risks, but there's a danger in that. I mean, you protect yourself that way, but you're not giving out the best information. An overreaction isn't a good reaction. You know, there were reports of people evacuating their houses, taking their kids off school. So these are quite big actions that people are taking based on, you know, small events that are essentially happening, you know, very, very regularly in this part of Italy.
[07:27]
Ruth Alexander
The tricky thing is that, unlike with a hurricane, you can't see an earthquake coming. A series of tremors may trigger a large quake or it may not. American scientists have since calculated that the probability on the day of an earthquake of magnitude 6 or greater hitting L' Aquila was around one in a thousand. So what were the risks of being killed? Here's Ian main.
[07:52]
Ian Main
Sadly, some 300 people died, most of them in a single building in a student dormitory in the L' Aquila event, in a town of a population of about 100,000. So your probability of being killed in that earthquake was a thousand times that ratio that vulnerability, if you like. So the actual risk of being killed in that earthquake was something like three in a million, with a big uncertainty somewhere between 1 and 30, let's say, in a million. And so that's a significantly elevated risk compared to the background, but still very low in absolute probability terms. It's equivalent to driving on a motorcycle for on the order of 18 miles, something like that.
[08:38]
Ruth Alexander
So the risk of dying in the l' Aquila earthquake in an unsafe building was the same risk you'd take if you travelled 18 miles on a motorbike that day in the UK. These are not big risks, but they're probably risks people ought to know about. If there are any numbers you like explaining or investigating, you can email us. Our address is more or less bc.cod and you can listen to more editions of this program and sign up for a free download at our website, bbcworldservice.com More or less
[09:14]
BBC Announcer
there are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sports. The details of them all go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.

Summary5 min read

More or Less – "Communicating Risk"

BBC Radio 4 | April 8, 2013 | Host: Ruth Alexander

Episode Overview

This episode explores the challenges of communicating risk, using the aftermath of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in Italy as a case study. It dissects the controversial trial and conviction of six scientists and a government official who were accused not of failing to predict the quake, but of miscommunicating the level of risk to the public. The episode examines the repercussions of the verdict for scientific and public attitudes, including the increasing tendency to over-communicate risks, and the difficulty in conveying low-probability but high-impact dangers. It also looks at how technology and social media have changed public risk perception and behavior.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The L’Aquila Earthquake and Scientists on Trial

The city of L'Aquila was devastated in 2009, resulting in over 300 deaths.

"More than 300 people were killed. Natural disasters are always shocking, but this incident became extraordinary." (Ruth Alexander, 00:35)
The incident made global headlines not just for its tragedy, but because six scientists and one official were put on trial—not for failing to predict the earthquake, but for how they communicated the risk.

"There was a feeling that science itself was being put on trial." (Ruth Alexander, 00:53)
Thousands of scientists protested the prosecution, claiming earthquakes cannot be predicted with certainty.

The Court Case and Sentences

In October, the seven were convicted of manslaughter and each sentenced to six years in jail due to “underestimating the risk.”
The prosecution noted that some citizens, reassured by expert statements that “the situation was normal,” stayed in danger zones when they would have otherwise left.

The Scientific Community’s Reaction

Widespread alarm followed the sentences, with fears it would discourage scientists from advising on public safety.

"There’s the chance of a third tragedy, which is just the withdrawal of the scientific community from engagement." (David Spiegelhalter, 02:12)
Interview with David Spiegelhalter (Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, Cambridge): He discusses the “triple tragedy”: human loss, punitive prosecution, and potential chilling effect on expert engagement.

Shift Toward Over-Communication of Risk

Since the verdict, Italian scientists and officials have shifted to a more cautious approach, regularly issuing alerts and public data—even about minor tremors.
This has created what is described as the “Post Aquila Paradox”—authorities feel compelled to attempt the impossible: predicting earthquakes.

"If the risk is between zero and 40% today, they'll tell us it's 40. Even if they think it’s closer to zero, they're protecting themselves..." (Francesca Maffini, Civil Protection Dept., as reported by Danny Mitzman, 02:50)

The Impact on Public and Official Behavior

The flood of information and frequent alerts has led to heightened anxiety and “mania” among residents.
Technology plays a significant role—apps relay every minor tremor directly to users, which amplifies alarm.

"Everyone here in our town, Barga, was jittery... They were all downloading these phone apps with tremor alerts. The atmosphere was really weird." (Anne Thornley Bennett, local resident, 04:31)
An episode in Tuscany saw mass evacuations triggered by a single Twitter message forewarning a quake that never came.

"Within hours, the entire town centre had been evacuated, with 16 neighbouring municipalities... caught up in the frenzy. Hospitals were emptied, schools were closed... In the end, nothing happened." (Danny Mitzman, 05:59)

The Difficulty of Communicating Earthquake Risk

Ian Main, Professor of Seismology, explains that a cultural shift towards excessive caution has occurred, and this can be problematic.

"If I was a seismologist in Italy, I would probably be very conservative myself... but there's a danger in that. You’re not giving out the best information. An overreaction isn't a good reaction." (Ian Main, 06:48)
Unlike hurricanes, earthquakes offer no visible warning, and most tremors are normal in seismic areas. Overreaction can lead to unnecessary disruption.

Actual Risk: Numbers in Perspective

On the day of the L’Aquila earthquake, the calculated probability of a magnitude 6 or greater quake hitting was about 1 in 1,000.
The risk of dying as a resident was around 3 in a million—comparable, says Ian Main, to the risk of traveling 18 miles on a motorbike in the UK.

"So the actual risk of being killed in that earthquake was something like three in a million, with a big uncertainty... So that's a significantly elevated risk compared to the background, but still very low in absolute probability terms." (Ian Main, 07:51) "The risk you'd take if you travelled 18 miles on a motorbike that day in the UK. These are not big risks, but they're probably risks people ought to know about." (Ruth Alexander, 08:37)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

David Spiegelhalter on the triple tragedy

"There’s the chance of a third tragedy, which is just the withdrawal of the scientific community from engagement. I mean, who’s going to be a seismologist in Italy now?" (02:12)
Francesca Maffini on overcautious risk communication

"If the risk is between zero and 40% today, they’ll tell us it’s 40. Even if they think it’s closer to zero, they’re protecting themselves, which is perfectly understandable." (03:01)
Anne Thornley Bennett on public anxiety

"We just went along with the mania... when you've got little ones, well, if anything did happen, you'd never forgive yourself." (03:31)
"Everyone here in our town, Barga, was jittery... You get constant beeps in your pocket and in the end it becomes a psychosis." (04:31)
Ian Main on risk and overreaction

"An overreaction isn't a good reaction... people evacuating their houses, taking their kids off school. So these are quite big actions... based on, you know, small events that are... very regularly in this part of Italy." (06:48)
Ian Main on the meaning of the numbers

"So the actual risk of being killed in that earthquake was something like three in a million... still very low in absolute probability terms. It's equivalent to driving on a motorcycle for on the order of 18 miles, something like that." (07:51)

Timestamps for Important Segments

00:13 – Introduction and context: L'Aquila earthquake and the trial
01:06 – Explanation of the trial’s outcome and its focus on communication
02:12 – David Spiegelhalter on the consequences of the trial
02:50 – 06:23 – Report from Italy: Changes in risk communication, public behavior, technology’s impact
06:23 – Ruth Alexander summarizes the “Post Aquila” situation
06:48 – Ian Main discusses the problem with over-cautious risk communication
07:51 – Ian Main quantifies real risk and puts numbers into perspective

Conclusion

The episode highlights the difficulties of communicating scientific risk, especially when dealing with low-probability, high-impact events. The L'Aquila case led to a cultural shift towards erring on the side of caution, creating unintended consequences: increased anxiety, mass evacuations, and the risk of undermining trust in expert advice. Advances in technology have made everyone more aware—but not necessarily better at judging—the meaning of statistical risk. Ultimately, the episode calls for more nuanced public discussion and understanding of probabilistic information.

Loading summary

Transcript15 lines

[00:01]
BBC Announcer
Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts
[00:13]
Ruth Alexander
hello and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Ruth Alexander. It's the fourth anniversary of an earthquake which devastated the city of L' Aquila in Italy and made headlines around the globe.
[00:26]
BBC World Service Reporter
World Update from the BBC. Coming up, a powerful earthquake hits central Italy. We'll have the latest from rescue workers.
[00:35]
Ruth Alexander
More than 300 people were killed. Natural disasters are always shocking, but this incident became extraordinary. Six scientists and an official were put on trial for failing to give proper warnings. Before the disaster, 5,000 scientists around the world signed an open letter to the Italian president saying there was no way the accused could have predicted. There was a feeling that science itself was being put on trial. But in October, the seven were convicted.
[01:07]
News Reporter
A court in Italy has jailed six scientists and a government official for manslaughter because they'd underestimated the risk of an earthquake. The seven received sentences of six years
[01:17]
Ruth Alexander
each because in the end, the case wasn't about the scientists ability to predict earthquakes, but how well they communicated the risk. They met to discuss a series of tremors that had been occurring, concluding that a large earthquake was unlikely, but that the possibility could not be excluded. However, in a press conference, one expert said the situation was normal and citizens were told there was no danger. In the trial's closing statement, the prosecution quoted one of its witnesses whose father died in the earthquake. He said his parents were afraid and would normally have left their home, but had decided, on the basis of the expert's reassurance, to stay. The scientists are appealing their convictions and their sentences were viewed with alarm by other statisticians and scientists. At the time of the verdict, we spoke to David Spiegelhalter, professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University in the uk.
[02:12]
David Spiegelhalter
It seems to me this is a triple tragedy. Obviously we shouldn't forget the terrible case of 300 people that died there, and that's the main thing. But now there's been this additional tragedy of these seismologists being prosecuted for large fines and ludicrous six year sentences. But there's the chance of a third tragedy, which is just the withdrawal of the scientific community from engagement. I mean, who's going to be a seismologist in Italy now?
[02:36]
Ruth Alexander
But almost six months on, it seems the opposite has happened. Scientists and officials are sending out data and alerts on tremors on a regular basis. But how useful is this? Danny Mitzman reports from one of Italy's earthquake prone regions.
[02:51]
BBC World Service Reporter
It's a different kind of aftershock. As Francesca Maffini from the Civil Protection Department explains, it's not the verdict itself, it's the very fact they were put on trial. She says it's inevitable that scientists are now erring on the side of caution when informing decision makers like them. If the risk is between zero and 40% today, they'll tell us it's 40. Even if they think it's closer to zero, they're protecting themselves, which is perfectly understandable. Seismic areas are now subject to a sort of Post Aquila paradox, the authorities feeling obliged to predict the unpredictable. Everyone knows you can't predict an earthquake, says Ann Thornley Bennett. So why on January 31 did she decide to evacuate when the local council sent out warnings of a major quake due to strike overnight? We just went along with the mania. SHE SIGHS when you've got little ones, well, if anything did happen, you'd never forgive yourself. Anne and her husband live in the picturesque but highly seismic Garfagnana region of Tuscany. For a week, they'd been experiencing constant tremors and aftershocks of up to 3.8 on the Richter scale. One day, the kids were even evacuated from school without their coats. SHE GIGGLES Realising I'd appreciate that only a real emergency would see Italian children being sent outside coatless in winter. I wanted to know more about what Anne called the mania. The local populations never mass panicked like this before. It seems to be driven by the fact that modern technology has put the science into people's pockets. Everyone here in our town, Barga, was jittery, says Anne. They were all downloading these phone apps with tremor alerts. The atmosphere was really weird. In the past, information would be filtered by the likes of the Civil Protection Department and the mayor's office. But now you can get it directly from source through apps with names like Italy Earthquakes and did you feel the earthquake? Everyone wants to be able to measure earthquake risk, even though scientists can only ever calculate low probabilities. Some apps tell you every time there's a tremor, including the small ones that humans can't even feel, says Keen, a local artist. Mine says there were 15 today in Italy, two in this area. You get constant beeps in your pocket and in the end it becomes a psychosis. And it's a psychosis that's affecting the authorities just as much as the ordinary citizens. The events of the night of January 31 came from one single Twitter message, originating 13km away from Barga. Official warnings of potential strong tremors prompted a neighboring town to send a tweet advising its residents to sleep out of their homes. Within hours, the entire town centre had been evacuated, with 16 neighbouring municipalities, including Barga, caught up in the frenzy. Hospitals were emptied, schools were closed and turned into shelters. Thousands more slept in their cars. In the end, nothing happened.
[06:23]
Ruth Alexander
Danny Mitzman in Italy, where lives are being disrupted as people struggle to know how to respond to the very small risk of a very large catastrophe. Ian Main, professor of seismology and rock physics at the University of Edinburgh in the uk, who was also a member of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting, which reviewed the events in l', Aquila, says he can understand why the risk assessor's pendulum has swung the other way.
[06:48]
Ian Main
That's a cultural response most likely to the recent court case. Obviously, the authorities are going to be very conservative. If I was a seismologist in Italy, I would probably be very conservative myself in issuing risks, but there's a danger in that. I mean, you protect yourself that way, but you're not giving out the best information. An overreaction isn't a good reaction. You know, there were reports of people evacuating their houses, taking their kids off school. So these are quite big actions that people are taking based on, you know, small events that are essentially happening, you know, very, very regularly in this part of Italy.
[07:27]
Ruth Alexander
The tricky thing is that, unlike with a hurricane, you can't see an earthquake coming. A series of tremors may trigger a large quake or it may not. American scientists have since calculated that the probability on the day of an earthquake of magnitude 6 or greater hitting L' Aquila was around one in a thousand. So what were the risks of being killed? Here's Ian main.
[07:52]
Ian Main
Sadly, some 300 people died, most of them in a single building in a student dormitory in the L' Aquila event, in a town of a population of about 100,000. So your probability of being killed in that earthquake was a thousand times that ratio that vulnerability, if you like. So the actual risk of being killed in that earthquake was something like three in a million, with a big uncertainty somewhere between 1 and 30, let's say, in a million. And so that's a significantly elevated risk compared to the background, but still very low in absolute probability terms. It's equivalent to driving on a motorcycle for on the order of 18 miles, something like that.
[08:38]
Ruth Alexander
So the risk of dying in the l' Aquila earthquake in an unsafe building was the same risk you'd take if you travelled 18 miles on a motorbike that day in the UK. These are not big risks, but they're probably risks people ought to know about. If there are any numbers you like explaining or investigating, you can email us. Our address is more or less bc.cod and you can listen to more editions of this program and sign up for a free download at our website, bbcworldservice.com More or less
[09:14]
BBC Announcer
there are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sports. The details of them all go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.