An advertisement taken out by RRFB Nova Scotia in Monday's Chronicle-Herald newspaper appears under the headline "Using Scrap Tires as Fuel: an Environmentally Sound Decision." The ad contains a number of "Facts" to reassure readers that burning 900,000 used tires in the cement kiln of a Lafarge plan near Truro is a better environmental strategy than recycling those tires.
This typist noted the interesting little piece of back peddling that occurred in Fact 2 of the ad. It's headline read "Using scrap tires as a fuel source in the Brookfield cement kiln will not adversely affect the environment or human health."
But the explanation beneath this headline reads: "A recently independent review commissioned by RRFP Nova Scotia concluded that the use of tire-derived fuel in the Brookfield cement kiln should have no adverse effects on surrounding air quality and human health."
So, we go from the categoric WILL NOT in the headline, to the more qualified SHOULD HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS. Is this a typo or an attempt by the advertiser to cover itself, you know, just in case?
Either way this typist is neither re-assured nor convinced. If the RRFB is so sure that burning almost 1 million used rubber tires is not harmful to environment and human health, shouldn't it be more careful about the words it uses in advertisements designed to reassure the humans who inhabit the environment where tires will burn?