[3niner]

Since this article is from Canada, they were probably using metric tons (1000 Kg). This would increase the total by about 10%, but this probably wasn't what was meant by the "check the math" person.

[sittnick]

Since this article is from Canada, they were probably using metric tons (1000 Kg). This would increase the total by about 10%, but this probably wasn't what was meant by the "check the math" person.

The article was printed in Connecticut, and the span length is indicated in feet (as in 65 feet), so I would presume that the other measurements (ESPECIALLY those that are the same or similar to U.S. equivalents) would be rendered using the U.S. standard. The usage of "metric tonnes" betrays the original premise of the metric system, anyway. The system was supposed to simplify things with a consistent use of base names and prefixes. They really should use megagram instead of tonne if they really believed in these principals.