Warnings and responsibility: Italy convicts earthquake scientists

You may recall that last year Italy placed six seismologists and a government official on trial for providing inadequate advice prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake that killed over 300 people. All seven defendants have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to an astonishing six years in prison.

As I discussed in in my blog last  September and October , the basis of the charges was not the ability of the seismologists to predict the earthquake as is popularly reported but rather the failure to provide adequate warning to the population. After a swarm of small earthquakes, the deputy director of the Civil Protection Agency convened a meeting of the Major Risks Committee to review the earthquake risk. The seismologists, who were part of the committee, stated that there was no reason to believe that the swarm of small earthquakes were a precursor to a major earthquake. The seismologists also stated that in such an seismically active area there was always a significant earthquake risk. At no point did they say there was no risk.

The problem occurred when the official translated this into a message to the public that there was no danger of an earthquake. Six days later, the temblor struck.

During the trial, the defense argued that the seismologists had given appropriate scientific advice as demonstrated in the meeting minutes and were not present at the news conference. However, the judge ruled that their failure to speak out and correct the bad information made them responsible for the deaths that followed. The defendants are appealing the verdict.

From my perspective that case raises some interesting questions about responsibility. While there is no evidence that the seismologists gave anything but scientifically precise information, did they have a duty to speak out when the official garbled the message? Should the official who claimed to be acting in good faith on the scientific advice as he understood it bear responsibility for the inaccurate warning? How much responsibility should the individual citizen bear for living in a seismically active zone and not being prepared? What about local officials who haven't implemented mitigation? And just what actions would have been taken and how long would they have been sustained if the warning had been more accurate?

These are not easy questions to answer and similar ones are asked after each disaster. I agree that there must be accountability for failing to adequately warn the public but charging scientists and government officials with criminal offenses is not the answer, except possibly in extreme cases of negligence. As an emergency manager, I rely heavily on solid scientific advice. Anything that inhibits or prevents a scientist from offering his or her best professional opinion is something to be shunned. There is a big difference between accountability and vengeance.

Earthquake safety czar appointed in San Francisco

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

October 17 was the anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, still well remembered here in San Francisco. The 18th was the date of the Great Shakeout, a state-wide earthquake preparedness drill. With all this attention on earthquakes, it was the perfect time for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to announce the appointment of a director of earthquake safety.

This newly created position will be responsible for implementing a 30-year plan to reduce the City's most dangerous earthquake risks such as the soft-story buildings that failed so dramatically during Loma Prieta. The appointee, Patrick Otellini, is a veteran building inspector and building permit consultant and expediter and no stranger to the intricacies of the City's builing code process. From what I glean from the news reports, he will report to the City Administrator rather than the Director of Emergency Services, which, while not ideal, could actually increase Ottelini's ability to get things done by broadening his political support base.

To the best of my knowledge, this is something incredibly unique. Mitigation of hazards is something to which municipalities generally give only lip service. The appointment of a specific individual to drive earthquake mitigation with the attendant public visibility and transparency is a major commitment on the part of San Francisco and is to be commended.

Firefighters on motorcycles: thinking outside the box

This image of a firefighter from 1917 suggests that while the application is new the concept has been around for awhile.

When you think of first responders on motorcycles, you almost always think of police officers. But firefighters? It goes against tradition. Yet this is just what is happening across the country in major metropolitan areas where fire departments are rethinking how they provide services.

While the motorcyles are equipped with fire extinguishers, the primary purpose of these teams of firefighters is rapid medical response and reconnaissance. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue was able to cut response time from seven minutes to as low as three. A Los Angeles Fire Department team reached the scene of a brush fire within three minutes, beating the helicopters, and mapped the boundaries of the fire for the command post.

The motorcycles are typically equipped with defibrillators, medical supplies, a small fire extinguisher and a GPS unit. Their chief advantage is their ability to circumvent the traffic congestion that slows a regular response. Maintenance and fuel costs are also considerable less than regular response vehicles.

Still, going against tradition is a hard sell in this time of tight budgets. Miami-Dade's program was a victim of budget cuts despite it's cost effectiveness. Other agencies are having a hard time getting programs initiated. Nevertheless, this is a great example of analyzing a need and coming up with a creative solution.

Pirates and the power of ideas

Promises Kept: A reflection on 9/11

In 2002 I had the privilege of making a few remarks at the unveiling of the new Heroes stamp issued by the US Postal Service to commemorate the events of September 11, 2001. I think I surprised my colleagues by beginning my comments by saying that I didn't think the term "heroes" should be applied to those who served on 9/11. I felt the term was over-used and implied something larger than life – think Hercules and Achilles or Superman and Batman – rather than an average person. In essence, the term tends to turn flesh and blood people into objects of veneration and ignores the courage and humanity of those who serve.

I have yet to meet a firefighter, police officer, or emergency medical technician that considered themselves a "hero". When complimented on something they've done, every single one has told me the same thing, "Hey, I was just doing my job." They are not demi-gods or superhumans – they are just people.  The difference is that they make a promise to be there when they are needed and have the courage to keep that promise, day in and day out, no matter the cost.

This willingness of first responders to hold to their promise is admirably summed up in the song Everyday Heroes written by Dave Carroll. Most people know Dave as the man who wrote the song United Breaks Guitars that went viral on YouTube and has become a case study on the power of social media. What isn't so well known is that Dave has been a volunteer firefighter for years in his hometown and his brother is a full time firefighter. He gets it.

So listen to the song and reflect for a few moments on the men and women who kept their promise on September 11, 2001. Would they have kept that promise if they knew it was going to cost their lives? You know the answer.

Public warning: Misuse can lead to confusion

Here's another no-brainer lesson that seems to have to be relearned on a regular basis: use you warning system only for actual warnings.

The City of San Francisco has had a system of warning sirens in place since the Cold War. In 2004 the old air raid sirens were replaced with a modern system. The system is tested every Tuesday at noon. People know this and know that if the if the sirens go off at any other time something is wrong.

Well, maybe. It seems someone in the previous administration thought it would be a good idea for the sirens to be used to signal the end of the Sunday Streets Program and the reopening of the street being used for the gathering. (Sunday Streets is a program of rotating closures of major streets to allow for public recreation.) Last Sunday the on-call technician accidentally activated the entire citywide system rather than just the sirens in the local area. Although the alert was followed by the standard test announcement, the unusual timing resulted in a large volume of calls to the City's emergency services. It didn't help that the Alert SF text warning system that could further have reassured the public that no emergency was occurring wasn't activated until over an hour later.

When I was Director of Emergency Services, I received countless requests to use our warning system for non-emergency purposes. One department head even had the effrontery to activate the system without notifying my office. It was a constant battle to prevent misuse of the system and I didn't always win. 

So here's the lesson: use your warning system for legitimate warnings. If you are using it for a drill, exercise or test, publicize it well in advance and follow up at the time of activation with press releases, SMS messages, tweets, etc. Fight the temptation to use it for civic events. Using your system for multiple purposes increases the chances that it will be ignored when it is really needed.

It also wouldn't hurt to check that bad habits haven't been carried over from previous administrations, as was the case here.The one good thing about this minor incident is that my colleagues from the SF Department of Emergency Management now have the ammunition they need to stop this misuse of the system.