Why are earthquakes and forest fires important to dispute resolution? For that matter, all the problems in the natural environment? (See a list of examples below)
(The natural environment is everywhere beneath our feet, also what we see beyond the built environment – the concrete jungle – and what falls from the sky above)
Forest fires and the like are important because they remind us about the importance of peer review – getting your forensic work checked by another.
Predicting when these natural events will occur relies on empirical science – observations – rather than on theoretical science that is backed up by laboratory and field testing. Determining the cause of failures and accidents in the natural environment also depends on observations.
If peer review is important in theoretical science – and it is as evident in the research papers – then peer review is even more important in empirical science, implicit in forensic investigation.
Our observations are particularly susceptible to direct- and cross-examination in dispute resolution. So, in disputes involving accidents and failures in the natural environment, you’re wise if you get your work peer reviewed before being exposed to examination.
A timely example of sorts would be a forest fire. Predicting if one might occur in an area requires observing and measuring quantities like:
- Wind
- Temperature
- Humidity
- Forest type
- Ground cover
Then putting this data in a computer model, cranking the handle and getting the Fire Weather Index about whether or not conditions are ripe for a forest fire. (Ref. 1)
We still need a lightning-strike or a camp fire to ignite the ready aye ready forest. But, the ripeness of the forest is determined by observations – empirical data – and reflected in the Fire Weather Index.
In addition to forest fires – some of those in Alberta are thought to have been deliberately set – examples could also be taken from the forensic investigation of the following. All of which are dependent to some extent on observations, not just theoretical science. And all would benefit from peer review:
- Sink hole development
- Foundation settlement/subsidence
- Slip, trip and fall accidents
- Motor vehicle accidents
- Landslides
- Soil erosion and sedimentation of lakes
- Coastal erosion, and
- Flooding
***
I realized the above when I took in a lecture on predicting when and where earthquakes occur. The lecturer was Dr. Steve Kramer a geotechnical earthquake engineer from the U. S. of A. on a cross Canada lecture tour. (Ref. 2)
He explained a model – a complicated equation – that he had developed to predict earthquakes. Empirical observations were fed into the model and the prediction made.
His talk was hard to understand and I’m still working on it. But I recognize – at least so far – that his model relied on empirical science, the kind that is checked by observations not just laboratory and field tests. This is the same for disputes arising from failures and accidents in the natural environment as compared to the built environment.
What’s in this blog for a forensic expert? S/he would do well to understand that if there’s a dispute, and the problem is in the natural environment, there’s an argument for getting their investigation peer reviewed. Their problem shares common elements with forest fires and earthquakes – an empirical, observational approach to a solution.
References
- Personal consultation with David Wagener, Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada, a forest fire fighter for 10 years with Parks Canada, retired, June, 2023
- Kramer, Steve, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2023 Cross Canada lecture tour: Performance-based design for soil liquefaction June, 2023
(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 27, 2023. ejorden@eastlink.ca)