Due Wednesday, September 27 - NOON
1. Using Wikipedia or another similar source, compare the magnitude of the Italian earthquake (6.2) to ones which have occurred in California. Which specific California quakes are they comparable to?
2. What makes earthquakes so hard to predict, even though they are seemingly inevitable?
3. What do scientists mean when they say “earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings kill people”?
4. The scientists and commission members were charged with manslaughter. What was the justification for the charge?
5. In a similar situation, seismologists have two options: they can weigh threat potential based on past events. If there is a high chance of an eventual major earthquake they can either tell the population to be cautious or tell them to leave the area. Why not simply tell people to evacuate in ALL cases? Wouldn’t that be the safest course of action? Why or why not?
6. On of the issues underlying this discussion is how percentages are communicated and understood by the public. Percentages mean different things in different contexts. If you have a 10% chance of winning the lottery that might sound more positive to you than a 10% chance of being killed in the cross county road trip. 10% seems high in one situation and low in the other. Discuss the use of percentages in the article and how they may have lead to miscommunication.
7. As Americans, it seems unlikely that we would ever convict a scientist in the manner the Italian did. However, can you think of any hypothetical situation wherein we MIGHT prosecute a scientist?
1. Using Wikipedia or another similar source, compare the magnitude of the Italian earthquake (6.2) to ones which have occurred in California. Which specific California quakes are they comparable to?
2. What makes earthquakes so hard to predict, even though they are seemingly inevitable?
3. What do scientists mean when they say “earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings kill people”?
4. The scientists and commission members were charged with manslaughter. What was the justification for the charge?
5. In a similar situation, seismologists have two options: they can weigh threat potential based on past events. If there is a high chance of an eventual major earthquake they can either tell the population to be cautious or tell them to leave the area. Why not simply tell people to evacuate in ALL cases? Wouldn’t that be the safest course of action? Why or why not?
6. On of the issues underlying this discussion is how percentages are communicated and understood by the public. Percentages mean different things in different contexts. If you have a 10% chance of winning the lottery that might sound more positive to you than a 10% chance of being killed in the cross county road trip. 10% seems high in one situation and low in the other. Discuss the use of percentages in the article and how they may have lead to miscommunication.
7. As Americans, it seems unlikely that we would ever convict a scientist in the manner the Italian did. However, can you think of any hypothetical situation wherein we MIGHT prosecute a scientist?