ecessarily for a major event, but, parentheses, this is earthquake country. You never really can tell. You should make sure your buildings are safe, etc. And that was the end of it. WOLMAN: They explained slowly what probabilities are about over timescales of decades. But then of course in a 24 second television news clip, you just can't get all of that in there. The most toxic example of that is a misstatement by one of the gentlemen who was convicted of manslaughter in the case. And someone asked him if they should be worried about the swarm. And he said, on the contrary, the swarm is a good thing because in essence, all these small earthquakes are releasing energy that otherwise would've been building up Puma Creepers Rihanna White
peddler Puma Creepers Fenty of pseudoscience can have in this kind of situation and really the harm that that kind of person can inflict. There was a gentleman named Giampaolo Giuliani, who for a long time had been saying that he had come up with a method for earthquake prediction based on emissions of radon gas from deep in the earth. And radon is not a tool today anyway that we can use to predict earthquakes. This did not stop Mr. Giuliani from yapping, really, nonstop about earthquake hazard in the area.
And because the people were so starved for information, they took to him and his message. And so this was the reason why they had to bring in the luminaries of seismology. And then of course, they say these things that to scientists are accurate but to the public were comforting, and we now know in hindsight, were perhaps too comforting. RATH: You write about a language problem here. That when people are discussing risk or when scientists are discussing risk, they aren't necessarily speaking the same language as the rest of us. Can you explain that?WOLMAN: We have incredible difficulty understanding probabilities. They said a .