Where there is no science – probabilistic hazard assessment in volcanological and nuclear waste settings: facts, needs, and challenges in Italy

Abstract An unfortunate reason for poor decisions in hazard assessments for volcanological and nuclear waste settings in Italy is the failure of scientists providing scientifically correct recommendations for action to meet their and public's needs based on neo-deterministic hazard assessment methodology, then to steadfastly act independently in the political process. In too many cases, Italian scientists have preferred to offer wrong recommendations, anchored in incorrect probabilistic hazard assessment (PHA) methodology to go along with, and even to defend, political decisions (what people want) rather than to oppose them on both scientific and ethical grounds. Politicians are not naive persons. It is legitimate on their part to select the best proffer from the scientific arsenal that is serving their interests. Not more, not less. Conversely, scientists should refrain from suggesting scientifically wrong stuff. Probabilistic hazard assessment methodology as a tool is scientifically wrong stuff to assessing low-probability high-impact events. In addition to the tragic 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake, which devastated central Italy and led to the unprecedented prosecution of six scientists and one government official for charges of professional negligence in adequately warning of risks, ongoing examples of this behavior include (a) the building of the largest civil hospital in southern Italy on the slope of the active Mt. Vesuvius; and (b) the 2004 plans to dispose of radioactive waste near the southern town of Scanzano Jonico. We discuss the striking cases of the Neapolitan active volcanoes near Naples (Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei) and also the radioactive waste disposal plan at Scanzano Jonico; wherein the support or silence of a large part of the scientific community led to the implementation and administration of PHA practices—known already now for many decades to erroneously reduce safeguards to protect populations against potential hazards. In both examples, we demonstrate why “the scientific community should help to stop using the absurd probabilistic approach, which has nothing to do with protecting the population”, stressing that the philosophy of the Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment methodology (Panza and Bela, 2020), should be the leading principle for the reliable assessment of the natural hazards.