Subscribe now

Letter: Letters: Literary fall-out

Published 11 May 1991

From M. G. SEGAL

I am writing to take issue with comments in your leading article, ‘Truth and Chernobyl’ (Comment, 20 April).

As you know, I submitted for publication a 3500 word article looking at the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. This was sent to you on 4 April, admittedly missing our previously agreed deadline. However, you had been told that this was likely to be the case in order to allow time for the normal clearance procedure within the MAFF. While you might think that we should have been able to speed up these clearance procedures, you have no justification for drawing the inference that ‘senior Government officials are still tempted to keep the lid on public debate about issues connected with the Chernobyl accident’.

How could it be so when it was the MAFF that originally suggested that we could provide you with an article on the subject? It is regrettable that our article could not be published at the same time as your own features on Chernobyl in last week’s edition. However, you have the MAFF article and I trust you will find space for it in the near future along with this letter so that your readers have the facts as well as the unwarranted allegation about withholding information which was contained in last week’s leader comment.

M. G. Segal Food Safety Directorate Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food London

Our conclusions were based on the fact that, several weeks after the article concerned had been offered, we were informed the offer was being unilaterally withdrawn. It was only after we protested that the ministry agreed the article could be submitted for publication. It will be published shortly. Ed.

Issue no. 1768 published 11 May 1991

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop