It's not always good to be a seismologist

Seismology is the science of studying earthquakes. And tremors, and aftershocks and everything else connected with earthquakes. I guess it's a nice, interesting job. Maybe even a tad laid back. Except when a disaster is involved. Like every other natural disaster, quakes can get pretty gruesome.

Seismologists don't just sit around waiting for Mother Nature to do some shaking. Or a whole lot of shaking. They work on predicting when one could possibly, or is about to, occur. They don't like to make predictions that carry a high level of certainty. You shouldn't try and fool Mother, and you damned sure better be careful when you say you know when she's about to do one of her "things."

In April 2009, there was a quake in Italy and 300+ folks died. Investigations ensued, of course. And one of those investigations was aimed at Italian seismologists.

"When the charges were brought against the Italian scientists back in 2010, they shocked

the scientific world. Prosecutors claimed that the scientists, while serving on a government

panel, minimized the potential risks of a potential quake in the region, and gave "incomplete,

imprecise, and contradictory information" to the area's citizens, according to an in-depth

report on the case last year in the scientific journal Nature."

Those six scientists were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison. They were found guilty of  failing to adequately warn the city of L'Aquila in advance of he quake.

As much as many of us would like to "convict" our local weather forecasters, we don't. It's just a silly idea. Now I'm wondering how many US bottom feeders lawyers are mulling over the possibility.

An Anarctic exploration, fortitude, bravery, ghosts, the human spirit and historical puzzles ...

... all in a book I just finished. I don't consider myself qualified to write a "review," but I may pique your interest with my impressions of Dead Men, by Richard Pierce. When I read the book jacket synopsis I thought, "Sounds interesting," but I didn't have any wild expectations. Not unusual for me when I make a reading selection.

The main story is about the man (Royal Navy Captain Robert F. Scott) and his expedition that lost the race to be the first to reach the South Pole. Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen was first. Scott and his men are portrayed through diaries and papers that were saved and a bit of fiction. The fiction reads like very good interpretations of fact.

Rarely do I read a book "I can't put down." The only time I can remember that happening was The Godfather. I polished that off in two consecutive nights of uninterrupted reading.

Dead Men held my interest, delivered everything the synopsis promised and something I wasn't expecting. Not one, but two love stories intertwined in the telling of the adventure.

One, involving the two main characters, developed as their investigation of Scott's trek took them to Antarctica in the hopes of finding the bodies of those left behind.

The other was that of Scott and his widow. Her reaction to the news of his death was, to me, amazing.

I don't, as I said, have the qualifications to consider myself a book reviewer. If I did, I think I'd give this one 9 stars (on a 10 scale).