Sir - Your report Didcot could go nuclear (May 25) opens with the words, "Fears were mounting". Why not, "Hopes were rising"? At least a nuclear station would mean the end of the chimney spewing out tons of pollutants, some carcinogenic, some radioactive; an end to filling beauty spots with fly ash; an end to unsightly acres of stacked coal.

Talking of fears encourages the view that nuclear power stations are something to be feared, not a view shared by the people who actually live near any of the current stations.

It is inconceivable that nuclear power will not be important in helping the world avoid the worst of climate change. It already provides nearly seven per cent of the entire world's energy, and is a carbon-free source for about a fifth of the UK's electricity.

Undoubtedly it is controversial, in no small measure because newspapers treat it as controversial. Those supporting it are described as "the nuclear lobby", with overtones of self-interest; those opposing it as "environmentalists" with only the interests of the planet at heart.

It would be helpful if newspapers, both local and national, devoted more space to setting out authoritatively the true facts about nuclear power in relation to safety, pollution, waste disposal, weapons proliferation and costs.

Your leader quotes George Monbiot's argument that we can't insist against countries like Iran having nuclear programmes when we continue to have our own. This misses the point that no one is objecting to Iran having nuclear power stations. The concern is over its building up an indigenous uranium enrichment capability, which is completely unnecessary to support its electricity generating needs but could be used to produce weapons. Let this not confuse the issue over our own future use of nuclear power.

Ian Colls Checkendon