Sir, – Your editorial (February 6th) on the risks of fracking was needlessly alarmist, giving comfort and succour to those who are against all development. Many of the objections that you quote, such as flammable gas pouring out of kitchen taps, bear very little resemblance to reality. For a start, the major sources of supply of potable water in Ireland are lakes and rivers and not underground aquifers; the latter is the case in the US.

I note that you quote approvingly that fracking has been suspended in parts of Germany; but Chancellor Angela Merkel has also banned nuclear energy on the basis of the Fukushima accident. When was the last time that Germany experienced a magnitude 9 earthquake and an enormous tsunami? Her decision was a classic, ill-considered knee-jerk reaction and not a considered response to the situation.

Your reference to an EPA-funded study by the University of Aberdeen to determine the potential risks is somewhat undermined by stating that the university “is no stranger to the gas and oil industry”. Would you prefer that the study be carried out by an institution with no previous experience of the extraction of oil and gas? A European Commission consultancy study, as reported in The Irish Times (Home News) on February 1st, has concluded that specific new legislation is not required.

You do not seem to appreciate how parlous is the state of our energy supply. We are reliant on imports of natural gas from the North Sea and increasingly from further afield. Your own paper carried a report stating that GazProm has warned the European Union that it cannot boost supplies of natural gas to meet rising demand in the West (World News, February 6th).

Naturally enough, GazProm’s priorities are to supply the Russian market first; imagine the consequences if we had suffered a repeat of last year’s harsh winter. In addition, the Commission for Energy Regulation has recently flagged the fragile nature of our gas pipeline from Scotland through which all our imports flow. With the Corrib gas field mired in endless insincere objections, our energy situation is becoming perilous.

Yes, there are risks associated with all human activities, but more information will be available before licences are granted for the production of shale gas; that is, if there are any resources that can be exploited commercially.

This information should be relevant in an Irish context and will facilitate the weighing up of both the risks and the benefits of fracking. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – I must admit to not knowing a great deal about fracking. However, it must be a good idea to wait until a full investigation of the pros and cons is completed before taking any action.

The reserves have been there for billions of years. They will probably survive intact for another two. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – From the comments in her letter (February 7th), Katie Robinson of Youth Defence seems to be one of those people who sees democracy only in terms of the will and dominance of the majority. But majorities can be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator. That is why the free world operates a system of constitutional democracy, which has other elements in the mix, such as parliamentary representation and a constitution that guarantees the rights, not only of minorities, but of the individual. By failing to legislate for abortion, our politicians have manifestly failed to uphold this principle, not least for the many thousands of women who have been and are obliged to travel abroad, year after year after year, in order to have their terminations. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Senator Ivana Bacik (Opinion Analysis, February 6th) is incorrect in her analysis of why the then government in 2002 introduced the 25th amendment to the Constitution. Senator Bacik writes that “a cowardly government caved in again to pressure from anti-abortion groups and held another referendum to rule out suicide risk”.

This was not the case. In 2002, the then Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat government introduced the proposed 25th amendment to the Constitution not because of pressure from anti-abortion groups, but because they had promised to do so in their election campaigns. This was one of those rare occasions when our elected representatives actually carried through on an election promise.

The 25th amendment was strongly opposed by the anti-abortion groups, including Spuc and Youth Defence.

How could Senator Bacik accuse the then government of introducing an amendment under pressure from anti-abortion groups, when those very same anti-abortion groups campaigned against the amendment? Why did Senator Bacik not mention these facts in her article?

The then government took the practical step of introducing a referendum that the largest party in that government, Fianna Fáil, could campaign for a Yes vote on. This was not the politically expedient option.

Senator Bacik might not agree with the Fianna Fáil stance on the 25th amendment (I did not either), but it was not cowardly, and it was very clear to the people where the party stood on the issue.

Ireland is ill-served by politicians who do not make their positions on abortion absolutely clear, whichever side of the debate they are on. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Prof Diarmaid Ferriter (Opinion Analysis, February 4th) depicts Ireland’s wartime neutrality as a pragmatic response to difficult circumstances and as an assertion of Irish independence. He also urges us to view the war through the eyes of the time rather than in retrospect.

One contemporary view was that of Robert Brennan, Irish ambassador to the United States. In a speech in 1942, he compared neutral Ireland to the medieval Ireland of saints and scholars who kept the light of civilisation burning during the dark ages.

He speculated that after the second World War, Ireland might be called once again to a mission of enlightenment.

Brennan’s comments reveal that the Irish political elite – and a good part of the population, too – considered neutrality to be morally superior to the position of all participants in the war, including the anti-fascist Allied coalition. Such was the hubris that led Éamon de Valera to deliver his condolences on the death of Hitler.

Had Irish neutrality been a purely pragmatic stance, it would have been abandoned when it was safe to do so in 1942 or 1943, when the country could have aligned itself with the Allies. Such a policy shift would have obviated many of the negative consequences of neutrality noted by Prof Ferriter, such as the country’s postwar isolation. It would also have asserted unequivocally Ireland’s independence not only as a sovereign state but as a free and democratic one.

Prof Ferriter chides Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter for politicising the historical debate about Ireland’s wartime neutrality but he must surely be aware that his own contribution to the discussion is political, too, and part of a long tradition of attempts to justify neutrality by reference to the complexity of the situation. It is the job of historians to represent past reality in all its complexity. But we also have a responsibility to analyse that complexity to get to the heart of the matter. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – After witnessing the escape of George Lee from Fine Gael, Eamonn Coghlan may yet be lucky to be a champion middle distance runner. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Some of the clues in Simplex have been in the singular yet the answers are in the plural. Yesterday the clue for 19 down – subdivision of a diocese (8) – suggested parish, but the answer required was parishes! – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Will this Government’s claim to fame be that they found a way to actually get blood out of a stone? – Yours, etc,

Sir, – The banks are putting smaller borrowers under severe pressure to liquidate property assets in order to bring down their level of indebtedness.

In a normal market this would be understandable, but in this country at present there is no properly functioning market in which to sell. In respect of residential property, the main reason why there is no functioning market is that the banks are unwilling to lend. Is this therefore not a display of moral bankruptcy by the banks? Perhaps they don’t understand. If they released a reasonable amount of funds to the market, there is then a reasonable chance of beleaguered borrowers being able to dispose of property, maybe not at price levels at which they bought, but certainly not in a fire-sale scenario that helps neither party. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – I noted the ceremony for new Irish citizens and noted the presence of An Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and the Army band (Home News, February 3rd).

Will we now see Mr Kenny and Mr Shatter, although hardly the Army band, at the airports to bid farewell to other citizens leaving the country because there are no jobs here for them? – Yours, etc,

Sir, – I used to be part of the squeezed middle but now I’m down with the squashed bottom. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – If a stranger gave me a “smack” would I think it’s okay (Jacky Jones, HEALTHplus, January 31st)? Of course it wouldn’t be okay. There is a huge difference between the purposeful smacking of a child in order to instil respect and discipline, and smacking a random stranger on the street; the connection is tenuous at best .

Ms Jones then equates corporal punishment to “child abuse”. There is vast disparity between child abuse and a behaviourally related disciplinarian smack. There is a clear distinction between what constitutes child abuse and what constitutes corporal punishment.

I agree with Ms Jones when she says that children should be put first, they are the future of our country, and, as such, one of a parent’s “responsibilities” should be to teach them proper conduct, whether or not this involves corporal punishment. These ridiculous comparisons do little for the debate and only serve to negate any valid argument proposing the eradication of corporal punishment. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – In an article entitled “The Missing Signage Gene” in the February 11th, 2008, newsletter for the Comhar Sustainable Development Council, Dr Frank J. Convery explained, “In the 19th century, the Celts were regarded as charming, imaginative, feckless and disorganised, lacking the inherent capacities that provide industry and organisation, missing the signage gene. The evidence for such ethnically based conclusions has not stood the test of time, so there must be other explanations ...” and he goes on to suggest “a directive from Cabinet that every State and local agency gets its signage act together, including making professional signage a requirement of all planning permissions and NDP-supported infrastructure investments, or budgets will be cut”. Alas, that other prominent Irish gene has overruled the good doctor – procrastination.

Four years after the fact, his 2008 newsletter could be republished with today’s date and it would be just as relevant, even after budgets have been cut due to the economic downswing. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Your report on proposals from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health to introduce regulations on alcohol advertising, minimum pricing, and to bring an end to sponsorship of sporting events, and even banning the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, must rank as among the most ill-informed ideas the Dáil has ever been asked to consider (Home News, February 6th).

Why should law-abiding consumers be deprived of choice and competition? The reintroduction of restrictions on the sale of alcohol may well deliver consumers back into the arms of monopolies and more expensive alcohol again. It may even deliver those same consumers into purchasing their alcohol across the Border or across the Irish Sea.

From the perspective of an older person, I like to to be able to purchase my wine, bottle of stout or naggin of malt under the same roof and at the same time as I purchase my groceries. I do not want the added inconvenience and cost of going elsewhere to purchase my tipple. Also, my supermarket affords me a degree of anonymity that I would not have visiting a pub or off-licence.

Our legislators are among the highest-paid in the world, but these proposals from the Oireachtas are more Luddite than progressive. They display a paucity of imaginative and innovative thinking.

The implementation of these proposals would only benefit special interest groups, again. The solution to this problem lies in more vigilant parents and rigid enforcement of the law. Why should moderate drinkers, who make up the vast majority of consumers, be made suffer for the State’s failure to enforce the law? I do not subscribe to the notion that increasing prices and restricting availability will deter young people from securing alcohol. I would back the ingenuity of teenagers who wish to purchase alcohol over any Oireachtas committee set up to thwart them.

I would like to see an end to under-age drinking and the social ills which accompany this scourge, but it is wrong to scapegoat responsible supermarkets, sporting organisations and society for the behaviour of the loutish few.  – Yours, etc,

Sir, – I believe the Government should tax all first holy communicants. Nearly 60 years ago when I made my first communion, I collected three pounds, 12 shillings and sixpence from neighbours and relatives.

At the time my pocket money was a penny a week, so this sum covered 16 years, one week and six days.

Translated into modern pocket money, that must be hundreds of thousands of euro!

Children still collect communion money, and while at seven they’re too young to learn about death, it’s never too soon to experience that other certainty, taxation.

The money should be collected from the children at the church gates by the politicians themselves – something they’re used to doing. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – The Greeks are, it would seem, going to have to face the equivalent of choosing between one blast from a shotgun or two, the “choice” being theirs, of course. The only purpose left in pursuing the farce of attempting to extract reparations from Greece is to threaten the other vulnerable countries into a state of paralysing fear. – Yours, etc,

Sir,  –   The   magnificent photograph (Home News, January 31st) of the restored Main Guard in Clonmel and the picture of the building before the work was done are truly inspirational and a great credit to all concerned.

It sends a powerful visual message of what can be achieved even in these difficult economic times. – Yours, etc,

Sir, – Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has suggested that he may ask the President to pardon the Irish soldiers who deserted the Irish army during the second World War to fight with the British forces. He proposes this on the grounds that they went to fight for freedom and he approves of their idealism.

Leaving aside any discussion of the rights and wrongs of this opinion, does his proposal not set a dangerous precedent? What these men did was a crime in the 1940s. If they are pardoned retrospectively for that crime, might not a future minister pardon other Irish people who were sentenced for crimes they committed in the past on the grounds that they too were motivated by idealism? How about the many men interned without trial for IRA membership or those executed in the 1940s for killing members of An Garda Síochána? A future Sinn Féin minister, for example, might think their crimes forgivable because they believed they were fighting for a united Ireland. – Yours, etc,