SYNONYMS, TYPOGRAPHICAL, & OTHER INTENTIONAL (?) ERRORS TO CONFUSE AND DECEIVE THE PUBLIC

There are several reports from the 1980s and very early 1990s written by consultants for Uniroyal Chemical and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP) that have become the "bibles" for environmental activists and citizens who have seriously pursued the truth for the last three decades regarding the 1989 Elmira Water Crisis. There were a couple of others from consultants hired by the Region of Waterloo namely CH2M HILL and one done by consulting firm Terraqua. These last two, especially the Terreaqua report (1986) I have very little difficulty with.

There are serious problems with the 1985 "History of Uniroyal Chemical Waste Management" produced by the MOE and GRCA as well as with the two Environmental Audits produced by Conestoga Rovers in August 1991 and January 1992. There are too many times that either products, building names, sumps, waste pits and ponds are referred to using synonyms without explanation or clarification. There are what look like typographical errors whereby a building number is one digit off what it was previously, again without explanation or clarification. As far as the wastewater distribution and disposal system there are a plethora of names and numbers for the very same sumps for example. Also there are incorrect dates and waste pit locations in the Environmental Audit.

All of this almost seems to be a bit of showing off. You know when you try to talk to a person about their work and they try to impress you with a ton of acronyms and or a ton of meaningless numbers thrown in to make their jobs and knowledge seem both greater than yours and vaster than it really is. Some consultants aren't happy unless they are basically speaking a different language than their audience which may also have the intent of discouraging questions if you have been totally lost during the presentation. Using synonyms to confuse your audience can be no more than trying to impress or it can be simple rudeness or finally it can be to intentionally confuse your audience.

Recently I've been rereading these reports, yet again. Keeping them all on the table at the same time and going back and forth between them is helpful. One can slowly pick out the confusing if not contradictory statements and see how it is done. The why is a little more subjective although from the experience and viewpoint of dealing with these two groups for three decades one can readily come to one's own conclusion. Sometimes there are blatant errors and other times it is careful word choice to make you think one thing until you reread it and compare to the other reports. Between multiple reports and authors one can slowly pick one's way through the smoke and haze. All of this further hinders true public consultation.