SIR — Recent correspondents in your column have raised the issue of safety in relation to the proposed Hinkley C development, one pointing out that if there were floods similar to those experienced in the area in the early 17th century we would be faced with a Fukushima type disaster, and another maintaining that our local experience of nuclear power was not significantly harmful.

In fact the nuclear industry has had safety mishaps of varying significance from its conception and it is improbable that it will ever be risk free.

There are three major safety threats — terrorist attack, a natural disaster and human error.

In the past 25 years or so there have been two scale seven incidents. Given the number of nuclear power stations operating, this suggests that Hinkley C has a 1 in 200 to 1 in 300 chance of a major accident occurring in the next 25 years.

The essential question for our planners is whether this very slight risk is worth the gains that will arise from the Hinkley development.

There is no doubt that Hinkley C will raise the per capita GDP of the area with some environmental and health costs if it operates. Also its use of non-renewable resources will be less than most conventional sources of power.

The cost of a major incident would be considerable.

The worst incident on record occurred approximately 25 years ago as a result of human error. Over one million people lost their lives through radioactive fall out, three million acres of productive land were lost and seven million were put on state benefits, suffering from cancers, leukaemia, chromosomal aberrations, malformations, Downs Syndrome, premature ageing, heart and circulatory diseases, all of which increased significantly in areas affected by fall out.

The likeliness of a very serious accident is slight, but it must be balanced against the very considerable costs should it occur.

The question is how successful are our planners at betting?

D J Higgins,

Ellicombe.