The letter “chemical facts” (August 30) really does not help the debate about fracking.

The writer mentions “polyacrimide”. Does (s)he mean “polyacrylamide”? This certainly has a number of applications (including in cosmetics).

I am unaware of a chemical called “polyacrimide”.

Hydrochloric acid is used as a fracking chemical. I can find no reference to it being “commonly” used for cleaning swimming pool water. The bacteria released by swimmers into swimming pools have survived the high concentration of hydrochloric acid in the stomach of those swimmers.

The way in which we use the word “chemical” in everyday language is unhelpful. Everything we eat, wear and use is made of “chemicals”. Water is a chemical. Oxygen is a chemical. Salt is a chemical. Paracetamol is a chemical. The ink in The Argus is made of chemicals.

Many people seem to use the word “chemical” when they are talking about something they think is dangerous. That is not very helpful, either. Although water is vital, too much is dangerous (we call it “drowning”). Oxygen is essential, but too much is very toxic.

We cannot live without salt, but too much is very harmful. Am I being pedantic? Perhaps.

And yet, when some people cannot work out 8x9 without a calculator or recite the dates of historical events in the 20th century, the response from others suggests we have reached the end of civilisation as we know it.

Why is it we cannot apply the same rules of accuracy in elementary science?

S Newton, Woodlands Close, Peacehaven

With regards to the coverage concerning fracking in Balcombe and the strain it is placing on policing costs, I feel reports are a little one-sided.

As far as I know, cyanide and hydrochloric acid will be pumped into the ground to somehow extract gases.

These toxic chemicals will get into our water system and, well... enough said.

The long-term “costs” of this could not be very nice for the county, let alone the country as a whole.

Duncan Edwards, Norfolk Road, Brighton