I HAVE to take issue with the headline to the article: 'Nuclear options as barrage put on hold' (The Forester October 21, page 11).

Let's be perfectly clear on this: The Severn Barrage project has not been "put on hold". It has been scrapped.

Chris Huhne has decided the scheme is too expensive following a "feasibility study".

Has this 'feasibility study' been published?

Is it available for public scrutiny?

Because I would like to know what form this "feasibility study" has taken.

A nuclear power station consumes uranium, which is not going to get cheaper (more on this later).

Because of the obvious health hazard, nuclear plants need a high level of safety measures in place and continuous monitoring of the environment. Because nuclear reactors are a target either through terrorism or in the event of conventional war, vast sums need to be spent on security measures (and we're not just talking about burglar alarms here) and this is before we even begin with the operational costs.

The price of uranium is as unstable as its isotopes. But investing in this element is big business. What affects the price is consumption. So investing in mining while the price is relatively low and then investing in nuclear power, which will force prices up, is good business. It attracts investors.

The one-off cost of constructing a Severn barrage may admittedly be higher than the cost of building a nuclear power station.

But it consumes a free resource, requires a lower level of health and safety measures and, although it could still present a target in the event of hostilities, as the consequences would be considerably less catastrophic, it would not require the same level of security as a nuclear reactor.

Once built, the main cost would be in structural maintenance, which would also apply to a nuclear power station.

The decision is not based on cost to the public nor is it based on effectiveness. It is based purely on investment opportunities. One cannot buy the tide at a low price and sell it at a high price according to demand. The tide is there and it's free. It doesn't have to be mined or produced, supplies are consistent and stable and will never run out. Good news for consumers... bad news for investors.

If there were ever any doubts that governments are nothing more than the PR wing of the corporatocrasy that really calls the shots, scrapping the Severn barrage should have dispelled them in all but the most gullible of minds.

This is not about what's good for you and it's not about what's good for the environment. It's about what's good for businesses that serve only the interests of their shareholders. The high level of cancers in this area and every other area within a 30-mile radius of a nuclear reactor doesn't even come into the equation. The people making money from this aren't going to be living here anyway. Advocates of nuclear power continue to insist that these abnormally high levels of cancer that cluster around nuclear reactors are purely coincidental.

What exactly does it take for us to figure out we're being duped?

Ron Tocknell

Lydney