A study by the Environment Agency found no link between the odours and the controversial fuel, although most of the residents complaining of stinks believed it was to blame.

Yet one of the problems surrounding the continuing Cemfuel row is that the fuel has now become such a bogey in the Ribble Valley that it is almost automatically held responsible for virtually every ill.

Was that not shown by the fact that, without proof, three quarters of the complaints about bad smells related to Castle Cement?

And is not the reason for this endemic mistrust the fact that after years of concern, Cemfuel has still not been proved to the community's satisfaction that it is not harmful?

One doubts whether, in some minds, it ever will be. But ought not efforts be made to nail down the truth as much as possible?

For, as we see, in the case of the complaints about bad smells, Cemfuel is cleared of blame. But of suspicion? Hardly.

Yet, would not a clearer picture and more even-minded outlook emerge, if studies like the one conducted by the Environment Agency had a broader scope.

For we learn from this last study that Cemfuel is not guilty, but not who is?

Surely it is not beyond the abilities of the investigators to determine where the blame lies, not just for the bad smells, but in regard to every other accusation about environmental pollution that in the Ribble Valley inevitably ropes in Cemfuel.

Perhaps they could even be categorical on whether the complaints are exaggerated or vexatious or otherwise.

Better and openly independent efforts are needed to get to the bottom of the Cemfuel concern or the controversy and complaints will carry on - fuelled by the distrust that breeds disbelief.