Dear Editor,

HAVING read the letter in last Friday’s Free Press regarding the use of glyphosate by Minehead Town Council (MTC) in their valiant efforts to control street weeds, I am moved to defend Ben Parker and our Council from what I feel was an unwarranted and dare I say, shrill attack, which I felt lacked context.

Let us be clear; the Pesticides Action Network (PAN) referred to in the letter could in no way be deemed an unbiased organisation. One only has to read their material to rapidly come to the conclusion they wish to ban the use of pretty much any pesticide, no matter how benign. For example, they splash their most recent ‘report’ as follows; ‘PLAYING WITH POISON’ in large capital letters. Hardly a temperate use of the English language. I studied this report and a significant number of the references quoted are their own previous opinions. (Oh, my, what a surprise!) A significant number of the their other references, such as the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Report is based on the use of glyphosate mainly by farmers in the USA in large volume spray on crops.

Other WHO research is based on the forced feeding to lab animals (mice/rats?) of pure, undiluted glyphosate. No wonder the poor beasts developed all manner of ailments. No mention of this in the main text of the ‘PLAYING WITH POISON’ report.

Yet another research paper quoted by PAN looked at various diseases in Thai agricultural workers potentially linked with glyphosate. It fails to highlight a finding in that very research which says, and I quote, ‘ that (it is) typically applied by farmers with backpack sprayers, machine sprayers, and by hand. Many fail to wear adequate protective clothing and equipment to prevent exposure’. Guess what? They have raised levels of glyphosate in their bodies. Quelle surprise!

Whilst we should be concerned about the potential harms of all pesticides/herbicides and their unintended consequences, the rhetoric deployed by Ms Jay against MTC did seem unjustified.

I have read the MTC weed control policy and found it to be an entirely sensitive and measured response to our needs in Minehead. There is no use of glyphosate in playgrounds and such like; street use only in a carefully controlled, targeted manner. So let’s not have ‘Armageddon talk’, which essentially seems to insinuate MTC’s modest use of this herbicide is laying waste our populations of birds, insects and befouling our waterways, the latter by rivulets of glyphosate trickling into water courses, when the application is simply not in the volumes/intensity or species rich locations, where frivolous use of herbicide could have deleterious effects.

Keep up the good work MTC, including the lovely show of bedding plants and arrangements in our streetscape.

Regards,

Chris Miller

Minehead

Dear Editor,

THE verdict of the Friends of Minehead Harbour on proposals made by the West Somerset Tidal Lagoon’s team is that plans for increasing the appeal to up-market tourists are unworkable, a “vanity project” and the area risks becoming overwhelmed by industrial infrastructure which could actually damage its appearance and lessen it’s appeal.

It is worrying that our MP, Rachel Gilmour, seems to have nailed her colours so firmly to the mast of the potential developers - before public explanation/consultation has taken place.

When she chaired the scrutiny committee of her Mid Devon District Council, a “money making” building project received an excoriating report from a top accountancy firm called in to pick over how the ratepayers there lost millions of pounds.

Brighton’s ratepayers have been stuck with absorbing a £50-million loss on a scheme embarked on by the people involved with the lagoon proposal.

Harnessing tidal power around our coasts makes sense but don’t let us be deluded into agreeing a proposal that would destroy what is currently offer. And the A39 can’t cope with traffic now.

Yours sincerely,

Sandra Jones

Old Cleeve

Dear Editor,

The so called public consultation is a sham.

It is a tickbox of questions biased in favour of the scheme.

I am not totally against the scheme, probably 50/50 at present, but I do object to being led down an unbalanced path and attempts to hoodwink the public.

The questions should be balanced between support and opposition, but is laid out in such a way that if you apply ticks to all the boxes, the results can be interpreted as a yes to the scheme and the design team/MP can say the public were consulted.

Let's have a fair process so that objections and negatives can be brought to the attention of all.

Regards,

Tom Cotter

Minehead

Dear Editor,

In your front page editorial of January 23 you wrote about the traffic problems in Church Street, Dunster.

The majority of problems are caused by the failure of the traffic lights.

The double set of motion controlled lights are not fully synchronised often resulting in vehicles being ‘caught’ in the middle of the traffic light section.

Also they fail to take account of slow vehicles such as coaches or lorries which fail to reach the second set of lights before they change to red and are likewise ‘caught’.

We are seeing thousands of pounds being spent on the A39 Dunster Junction lights which have always worked satisfactorily ever since they were installed yet they seem unable to adjust the timing of the lights in Dunster Church Street which could probably be resolved by one technician in half a day.

Kind regards,

Antony Brunt

Dunster