IF DAVID Williams (The Issue, Oxford Mail, July 6) wishes his anti-nuclear views to be taken seriously he must cite references to the source(s) of the data that he quotes.

It is not acceptable for him to use phrases such as “recently published evidence by leading epidemiologists suggests”.

Similarly, when he compares the relative costs of generating electric power by various means he should give the figures and reference the source(s).

It would also be of interest to hear how he hit on a figure of 2,000 years for nuclear’s “toxic legacy”.

I was surprised to hear Mr Williams say the nuclear industry is “renowned for its deception and secrecy”. These are strong words indeed.

I worked in the nuclear industry for nearly 40 years and saw no such wrong-doing. The nuclear industry has been regulated more strictly than any other British industry.

Mr Williams mentioned the recent problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

As Dr Weightman, Britain’s chief nuclear inspector, has already made clear in his investigation into how events at Fukushima will impact on the British nuclear industry (report published May 18, 2011), the 40-year-old power stations at Fukushima stood up well to one of the world’s most powerful ever earthquakes – the problems arose when the tsunami flooded the pumps that circulated the coolant.

Since Britain is about 1,000 miles from the edge of the nearest tectonic plate, severe earthquakes and tsunamis will continue to be a rarity in the UK. Mr Williams also criticised the decision of Chris Huhne to approve the building of new nuclear power stations. But without them Britain will not meet its future energy needs.

Inexpensive and stable supplies of electric power underpin all advanced economies, and Britain’s decision-makers have recognised that fact by encouraging investment in new nuclear power stations.

DR JOHN SANDALLS, Locks Lane, Wantage