Cloud of doubt hanging over Lafarge tire-burning plan

The large cement dust cloud that escaped the Truro Lafarge plant and descended on a lake two kilometers away did not reassure this typist that burning 900,000 tires in the plant is safe.

Lafarge and government officials assured the public that the large grey cloud consisted of limestone dust which is not hazardous. The problem was a loss in water supply used to dampen down limestone dust.

Honest mistake. But what if another honest mistake occurred at the Lafarge plant? What if, say, the thermostat went in the plant's kiln where the 900,000 tires will burn? If temperatures happened to fall during tire burning and combustion levels were not sufficient to scrub emissions of toxic dioxins and furans, they would be released into the environment.

The RRFB has approved burning tires at the Lafarge plant based on a study by the American Environmental Protection Agency. It is interesting to note that the study does not investigate the "honest mistake" scenario like the water supply problem which caused the cement dust cloud over the Lafarge plant this week.

Great moments in spin: tire burning is environmentally sound

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?