I WAS named in Keith Mitchell’s letter (Mail, September 10) in which he gratuitously insulted those with a range of atypical sensory conditions, such as deafness, muteness and blindness, in an attempt to discredit campaigners against waste incineration, such as myself.

He also claimed to address points I have raised. What I have said, in the Press, during recent months, includes OCC have not consulted the local population on the choice of incineration of waste, rather than alternatives Incineration is not often cost- effective Alternative methods are probably more cost effective Incineration produces pollutants likely to be injurious to human health Statements made by OCC that incinerators are safe are misleading Insufficient attention has been paid to the location for burial of hazardous waste at Sutton Courtenay EfW and CHP have seldom produced the outputs claimed for these technologies, if at all, in the UK Burning waste produces less good usable outputs than other methods Mr Mitchell’s behaviour is arrogant.

I am still waiting for reasonable discussion from him of points 1-8. Given this, and his insult, point 9 is self-explanatory.

As I live in Sutton Courtenay and know at first hand about the company’s record, it would be hypocritical of me to say I was not relieved at the Cabinet’s dismissal of WRG.

However, I have long maintained through the Press that the whole process resulting in the selection of incineration was flawed and I am still campaigning against this decision, wherever an incinerator may be located.

Since councillors are also concerned about the process, evidenced by their recent call-in, could they now insist on a thorough appraisal of alternative methods, this time properly consulting the public?

Dr PAULINE AMOS-WILSON, Milton Road, Sutton Courtenay, Abingdon