Ranking. Mantua 62, Mestre 58, Maccan 39, Cdm and Rovereto 38, Altamarca 35, Elledì 32, Pordenone 31, Lecco 28, Cesena 26, Leonardo (-1) 23, Milan 19, Ol. Verona 18, Modena Cavezzo 15.
The argument is that a successful prediction would greatly reduce the loss of life
by permitting dangerous buildings to be evacuated
and hospitals and rescue teams to be prepared and on standby
Given that this vision sounds so appealing
it is perhaps surprising that most specialists working on natural hazards argue that work on prediction is at best a red herring
and at worst has adverse impacts on our ability to manage disasters
we should be clear about what is meant by prediction
In this context we mean that in advance of an earthquake a correct estimate is made of its magnitude
To be useful an earthquake prediction needs to include all three
It is of course reasonable to provide a prediction that indicates a range of values
So a prediction that an earthquake with a magnitude between 7.4 and 7.6 might occur in a particular location between 16:00 and 20:00 on a particular day would probably be fine; a prediction that an event of magnitude 2.0 to 9.0 might occur in May somewhere in the US is unhelpful (and guaranteed to be right
So what are the objections to investment in
Let's set aside for the moment the technical concerns (and there are many)
The first problem is one of the impact of the prediction itself
Let's imagine a scenario in which a long-range prediction is possible
and postulate a situation in which a correct prediction is made today that on 30 May 2013 an earthquake of magnitude 8.2 will strike the fictional city of Newtown
If we were 100% confident in our prediction
But what would be the economic and social impact of the prediction over the coming year
It is likely that a large number of people would move away
and the economy would probably go into freefall
The economic and social cost for Newtown would be huge – and indeed might be greater than the cost of the earthquake itself
This is made far worse when one considers that the prediction cannot be 100% reliable – indeed as I'll show below it is likely to be a long way from this — which means that it could well be a false alarm
In this case of course the unnecessary damage to the economy and social functioning of Newtown would be very large indeed
So if the economic and social impacts of a very long-term prediction are problematic
Say a prediction could be made that the same earthquake will strike Newtown 24 hours from now
This would avoid the long-term economic and social impacts
but would permit a high level of preparedness to be achieved
but the practical problem lies again with uncertainty in the prediction
Let's say the prediction was perfectly correct in terms of the time and the magnitude
but was 200 kilometres out for the location
This could have disastrous consequences if the population has been moved from the area of the prediction into the area that is now affected
This could (and probably would) make the impact of the earthquake far more serious than if no prediction had been made
Or let's say that the earthquake location and magnitude was exactly right
but that it happened three days later than the prediction
There is a large chance that the population would start to move back into the affected area
and could be more vulnerable than if no prediction had been made
the mechanics of earthquakes makes predicting them even more problematic
while it is common to imagine that an earthquake is similar to a bomb being detonated at a point underground
with the energy waves travelling away from that point
the actual mechanisms are rather different
an earthquake occurs as a result of two blocks moving past each other on a fault — an underground surface — with energy waves being radiated from every point on that surface
The earthquake typically starts with a rupture event that starts a slippage
which then spreads along the fault over a period typically of a few minutes
The magnitude of the earthquake (the amount of energy released) depends on how much of the fault slips
how much movement occurs and the type of slip that is generated
These parameters also determine the area affected by the earthquake: in general it is places close to the fault that receive the most intense shaking
So forecasting which parts of the fault might slip once a rupture starts is incredibly important – and really difficult
In the 2008 Wenchuan (Sichuan) earthquake the rupture started at one end of the fault
with the earthquake then propagating for over 200km to the northeast
In other cases the rupture propagates in both directions along the fault
A reliable prediction would somehow need to account for this behaviour
which looks unrealistic in the short term at least
So even if the location and timing of the rupture event were correctly anticipated
the actual earthquake event in terms of area affected and magnitude would still be unclear
the magnitude of damage depends on the depth of the earthquake
Sometimes large earthquakes occur at very significant depths (more than 50km)
in which case typically a wide area is shaken
but the intensity of the ground motions is comparatively small
At other times the earthquake is very shallow (10km or so
with movement affecting faults that reach the surface)
in which case the shaking is typically more intense but affects a smaller area
And finally there is the problem of false alarms
False positives (cases in which a prediction is made but no earthquake occurs – crying wolf) would quickly result in a loss of confidence in the system
False negatives (cases in which no prediction was made for an earthquake that actually occurs) are also very problematic because a population that is convinced that it is likely to be warned before an earthquake is likely to be less prepared
So the real solution is not prediction but forecasting. We know quite well the areas that are likely to be affected by earthquakes – and the international Global Earthquake Model project is under way to improve these estimates – and we have a good understanding of the probability of events in a human lifetime
We also know the main causes of loss of life in earthquakes
We have the knowledge and skills to reduce the impacts of such events
for example we know how to build structures that can withstand high levels of shaking; we know the areas that are most vulnerable to tsunamis; and we know how to stabilise slopes (although in all three cases a great deal more work is needed)
The impediment to actually achieving these measures is a combination of political
especially in the most vulnerable urban areas in less developed countries
the development of methods of prediction is often an excuse not to take the appropriate actions
Most natural hazard specialists believe the key to reducing losses is to use our existing knowledge of the ways earthquakes occur
to implement measures that increase awareness
The real focus needs to be on dealing with the social
political and economic barriers that prevent effective disaster risk reduction
While speculative research on prediction is an interesting exercise
it is not the magic bullet that will reduce losses
no matter how appealing it might seem at first glance
David Petley is executive director of the Institute of Hazard
Mourning. Modena futsal is mourning the passing of Giuseppe Malaguti, historic president and soul of the Gianluca Montanari sports group, one of the historic clubs of city 5-a-side football born in the parish of the Sacra Famiglia (where the funeral took place yesterday afternoon), which after many years between C1 and C2 ceded the title in 2018 to Modena Calcio a 5 which then became Modena Cavezzo Futsal in 2020.
400 euro fine to Castelfranco for insults by fans to the referee and throwing a bottle of water followed by spitting at the referee.