I am writing on behalf of Parents Concerned About Hinkley in response to the comments made by the Government minister Amber Rudd. She said that opponents of nuclear misread the science as it is safe and reliable and the challenge, as with other low carbon technologies, is to deliver nuclear power which is low cost as well.

It is Amber Rudd who is behind the times in understanding nuclear science. Since the government decided that public health detriment from exposure to nuclear radiation was justified we have provided new evidence of individual radionuclide health impact from the US Environmental Protection Agency; evidence that There is No Safe Dose of Nuclear Radiation Exposure from NIRS – Nuclear Information Resource Service and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

She also spoke about 'a legacy of under-investment' and that Hinkley Point C would start generating in the mid-2020s.

Amber Rudd was also ill informed in her response to the DECC Select Committee on 17 November when she stated that communities close to the proposed Hinkley C welcomed new nuclear build ‘because they had experienced it before’.

We have concerns over the affects the development will have on the long term health of Somerset coastal communities.

How does Amber Rudd defend committing £24billion of taxpayers’ funding to Hinkley C while at the same time she is wrecking the UK’s renewables industry by suddenly withdrawing FIT?

The biggest mistake of the past was for the UK to be the first to develop nuclear power. At the time, nuclear was promoted as ‘too cheap to charge for’. We now have global evidence that nuclear never was economic, never was safe and above all never was necessary. And it is NOT low carbon; existing AGR reactors are cooled by carbon dioxide which is routinely discharged into the atmosphere.

Develop interconnections with other European countries and support renewable energy, particularly solar in India, Africa and China.

Jo Brown, PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley), Blackthorn