THE main fracking concern for most people is its possible effects on our drinking water, so I asked our providers (Southern Water) and our protectors, (The Drinking Water Inspectorate) for their stand on the subject.

Southern Water say, “We recognise that there are potential opportunities to extract shale gas from within our operational area and we do not wish to hinder economic development in the region. However, we acknowledge that there are potential risks with activities of this nature which must be assessed, regulated and mitigated before such activities are allowed to begin. On this basis we neither oppose not support the exploitation of shale gas.”

The DWI (DEFRA) say, “With respect to drinking water, there are strict regulations that govern the supply of water for drinking, including a requirement for water supplied to be wholesome.

Also within these regulations, water companies are required to continually risk assess their supplies and mitigate anything that would constitute a potential risk to human health. The Inspectorate reviews the risk assessments and has powers to ensure drinking water supplied by water companies is up to the required standards.”

Three points are raised here. ‘Wholesome’ does not mean ‘safe for human consumption’, as the London Food Commission (Tony Webb and Tim Lang) pointed out in 1992. The OED definition is ‘conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical wellbeing’.

It is a woolly word with no equivalent in any other language.

Its legal ambiguity was at the heart of the 1980s McColl v. Strathclyde fluoride case (lasting 11 months) and much later fluoride protest.

‘Mitigate’ says the OED, means only ‘make less severe, serious or painful’, it does not mean prevent or cure.

‘Review the risk assessments’ means to check the paperwork, not the site processes.

So how adequate will our protective systems be and who will be responsible for checking and controlling the reality?

Margaret Reichlin, Maccallum Road, Enham Alamein