A LOT of people are concerned about the nuclear development at Oldbury. Advocates, however, stress that the likelihood of an accident is very slight. This is debatable as the Severn is a treacherous river and very unpredictable and even Horizon's own assessment area identifies it as "high risk".

We are told that there is more risk involved in crossing the road and I don't doubt this is true. We are also more likely to be injured in an accident in the home or workplace. However, the baseline of all health and safety guidelines is that every individual must take responsibility for their own safety. We can choose whether or not to cross the road and we can take precautions to ensure our own safety. The same is true regarding accidents in the home, the workplace and virtually all situations that may present potential hazards. The hazard that Oldbury presents differs from all these in two major factors:

1.We are not given the choice. We are exposed to the risks whether we like it or not.

2.There are no steps that we as individuals can take to ensure our own safety (other than crossing our fingers).

So let's look at a second-to-worst-case scenario (that is to say that you don't die but you do have to evacuate your home, which will remain uninhabitable for the duration of your lifetime and for the lifetime of your descendents): You can forget home insurance. Even if the accident was the fault of the nuclear plant, your insurance won't cover it and nuclear energy companies have a "capped" liability in the event of a disaster.

That means you'll have to get in line for a share in a limited payout, which probably wouldn't buy you a used car, let alone a house!

If the accident was caused by a freak weather condition, you can forget even that. The nuclear energy company would not be liable for an "Act of God"... in fact (please correct me if I am wrong), as a taxpayer, you may even be shelling out to cover the company's costs! In this instance, you would have to get in line (and wait in line for a number of years) for a share in whatever relief fund the government may deem to grant you (and this particular government only likes to pay out money to those who already have more than they know what to do with). In short: you're well and truly... well, creeks and the absence of paddles spring to mind.

OK, let's suppose there isn't an accident but you feel a little uneasy about living within the danger zone of a nuclear plant (the area within a 60-mile radius of Chernobyl remains uninhabitable and will be so for several hundred years to come): the only action you can take to ensure your own safety is to move.

If you work locally, you'll have to get another job as far away from Oldbury (or any other nuclear plant) as possible. Let's assume you manage to do this. You check the housing market in that area and find something you like so you put your house on the market... good luck! It's not inconceivable that someone might be willing to buy a house within a nuclear plant danger zone but don't hold your breath.

Even if there is never an accident at the plant, the output at Oldbury will be far greater than any other nuclear plant built in the UK to date. This means that there will be an increase in cancer cases, most commonly: myeloid leukaemia. Because it is impossible to prove a causal link to radiation emissions, the nuclear energy industry continues to deny any liability. The fact remains that cases of cancer are double the national average around every active nuclear facility on earth.  That is to say that, if the rate of cancer cases around Oldbury do not significantly increase when the plant becomes active, it will be the only plant on earth in an area where there is not a significant cancer cluster.

Plain common sense illustrates an obvious link between nuclear plants and cancer clusters. But, in legal terms, this can only be regarded as "anecdotal evidence". Certain cancers can be conclusively traced to chemical contamination origins but, as yet, there is no concrete medical or other scientific means of conclusively distinguishing between cancers caused by other means and those caused by radiation levels. Likewise, there is no medical or other scientific means of proving that a fox will eat your chickens... so why waste money on chicken wire?

In the unlikely event of a reactor meltdown, those of us lucky enough to survive will have to leave our homes and never return... with little or no prospect of any meaningful compensation. In the very likely event of this development going ahead (unless we can put up an opposition comparable to the HOOF and HOOT campaigns), even if there is never an accident, there will be an increase in cancers and the anxiety of living so close to a nuclear plant will have a negative impact on the health of many people and this will affect our local economy.

This development is bad news whichever way you look at it!

– Ron Tocknell, Lydney.­