Adding Lithium to public drinking water

Than distill it, because otherwise that's impossible. It would be horrendous if they had just poured random chemicals with unknown effects into the supply, but they didn't do that. This was an experiment with a known goal and a pretty good idea what could be expected. It seems to me that this experiment also lead to a reduced rate of homicide and crime in the area, which I see no problem with.

At the same time, I can't say for sure what I might feel if someone told me they'd done this to me, but if It hadn't really effected me negatively I wouldn't really have too much of a problem with it I think.

If this were to actually become more standardized, it is unlikely that the amount of lithium in the water would be in highly significant concentrations. The ill effects would be practically non-existent and less harmful than plenty of other things we already encounter anyways.

And it wouldn't be mind control. In fact, it would be the opposite. You could gain more control over your mind as it reduces impulses.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind it for the long-term benefit of reduced crime.

Besides, the fact that they actually did these with information already in place in no-risk experiments and then actually released the information to the general public is a step up from a lot of stuff from the government.

Considering the whole "Dose people with LSD to see what it does for mind control" thing.

Treating everybody for a chemical imbalance in the brain suffered by a minority is an intelligent action?

Is there a large amount of data on lithium usage and side effects? WebMD cautions lithium usage in pregnant women as it can cause an increased risk of birth defects. I think that pretty much kills the idea at a national level.

I get my water from a well behind my house.

Mind altering substances in the very thing that we need to live is a horrific act that I would have expected to come from China or North Korea. I'm horrified to think that someone as smart as you would support such an act. I am truly dismayed. So it's a "pretty good idea" to force people by economic conditions to take something that will alter their mind (for the greater good!) instead of solving the actual problem? So it's okay to alter the minds of millions in order to solve a problem caused by a minority? That is back asswards if I've ever heard it.

You are aware of the side effects of lithium correct?

Mild hand tremor; mild thirst; temporary, mild nausea and general discomfort.

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); blurred vision; confusion; diarrhea; drowsiness; excessive weight gain; fainting; giddiness; inability to control the bladder or bowels; increased thirst; increased or decreased urination; involuntary twitching or muscle movements; loss of consciousness; loss of coordination; muscle weakness; persistent headache; persistent or severe nausea; ringing in the ears; seizures; slow or irregular heartbeat; slurred speech; swelling of the ankles or wrists; unsteadiness; vision changes; vomiting.

the excuse of "well the dose will be so tiny..." if the dose will be so tiny then why are we even putting it in the water supply?

So what are we to do with pregnant women or those with allergic reactions to lithium? Simply force them to drink it and damn the consequences or force them to buy distilled water and place an unnecessary economic burden on them?

What about people like me who won't consent to mind altering chemicals in their water? Are they supposed to go without? Be forced to buy distilled water?

If somebody needs or wants lithium in their water, then they should add it instead of forcing me to take something that I do not need nor want. Give it to those who need it as opposed to forcing those who don't need it to take it.

If this is implemented in my state you can safely bet that I'll sue everyone who was even standing in the same room as that proposal.

I have absolutely no problem with fluoride etc. being added, things which benefit a vast majority of people, but this is overstepping the mark somewhat. The target group is too small a proportion of the population to warrant dishing it out to everyone.

I can see the appeal, though. It's a remarkably effective quick fix, if this evidence is to be believed. The effects are largely positive barring extraordinary situations, and every drug anyone ever takes has a minuscule chance of complications.

I wouldn't mind it, personally. But I do believe that people should have the right to refuse, and it might well pave the way for greater infringements of rights. Considering the shitstorm that would be unleashed if this ever came to fruition here or in the US, I think the money and effort would be better spent identifying individuals who need it before they commit crimes.

Trialling it with prison populations, however, where the inmates have already lost basic rights and where the benefits and need would be greater, seems logical.

Mainly what I want to say is that I think that the number of people who were saved from homicide and other crimes in this experiment would probably be more numerous and grateful to be alive than the few people with allergic reaction are angry about it. I feel like I've worded this poorly, so please ask for clarification if I muddled it.

Don't you think they would be a negative effect on the population if they knew they were being slightly "drugged" (or whatever the correct term is)?

Reducing impulses isn't all good either, all impulses are not bad.

I don't particularly care about this since it's not like lithium is going to be the thing that turns me into a mindless authority loving idiot. If it cuts down on suicide and other crimes then whoop de do. Then again I do use a filtration system on my water so I don't suppose I'll be getting whatever it is they're putting into the water in the first place.

Let's be honest here.

I will refuse to tolerate this blatant mis-use of power over communal resources, anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fascist.

There is no 'greater good' here. There are many ways to reduce crime. Forcing an entire population to intake a substance to reduce your impulses is comparing nuking an entire nation due to a small group of people within a large population.

Nobody knows long term side effects either, I know I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig, or worse, our children.

Sure, small doses over a potential life time. What happens when a child brought up on small doses of lithium? Is there any evidence showing it could have bad outcomes?

You can't make an minority of people, and force it upon the entire nation to take doses to help control impulses when the majority of the nation has not done anything wrong.

Everything has side effects to it, from coffee to soap, but we live with it. True why would they put a drug that personally i can say is the worst bi polar med ever... but.. well i just list this

guess what this is from... something we all take.. in my case everyday. Advil/Tylenol. Everything has a draw back, from the flouride in public water, to your soda having weird chemicals in it, to your kids vaccines including stuff like mice brains and formaldehyde. Isn't the common good better then the needs of the few.. we allow people to eat food genetically enriched with more vitamins and add more vitamin d in milk, more fiber in cereals. Why not add some mood stabilizers in the water... they're always bottled water and in my case.. we have our own well with mother natures piss fill ground water.. and filters.

The same question can be, why can't water 'enriched' with lithium be added to specific bottled waters? Not all bottled water, but why does it have to be in the main water system? It could have some hippie logo with it to calm the soul ;|

Why should anyone be forced to go out of their way to buy water that doesn't have it compared to going out of our way to get it with lithium in it?

Totally in agreement. Let a private firm market and release it in bottled water.

It's up to personal choice and what you want. No one realizes that your city water is full or additives and drugs already, so filtering your water should be a non issue. They found the drinking water near my new house which came from a river system and lake was full of ag chemicals, prescription pills like, birth control and ADD meds, and meth runoff. The city i live in gets 60% of it's water from recycling sewer water or 'Reclaimed water'. The shit in that water was run thru chemicals know to cause cancer and health problem. That why i builting a well and filtering system because the city and even the districts water system uses crappy water.. literally, but that a choice and not a right. Now if let's say they what to do this:
1. Has to pass the clean water act rules federal and state.
2. Have local government vote on it.
3. Pass a mandated for a vote by the people to use it.

So if you don't like it then vote against it, or like where i from,(water is full of sulfur and crappy stuff) Get your water from a water service or chip in 25 cents to fill a five gallon water jug for drinking purposes.

The Prez already dealt with the "Mind altering=Automatically bad!" issue, so I'll focus more on the side effects and benefits of lithium.

The clinical dosages of lithium used to treat psychiatric disorders--400-1800mg, more or less, depending on age, weight, metabolism, severity of symptoms and other factors--are very close to the toxic levels, which is why people on lithium treatment can get the bad side-effects that Fpod listed. What is the amount of lithium they want to put in the water supply? Assuming they want to get it to the levels of the naturally lithium-rich waters mentioned in the study, that would just be 123mcg per litre. 123 MICROGRAMS vs 400-1800 MILLIGRAMS. For the computationally challenged, that's comparing .125mg to 400mg. If you drink two litres of the lithium-rich water a day, you would only be getting about .0625% of the lowest clinical doses. Yes, it is THAT small.

Why add lithium at all if the levels will be that low? They only want to put a tiny dose because that is all that is necessary to have a beneficial effect. Too much and you can cause hypothyroidism and the other bad side effects--there are actually areas along the Andes where this is a concern, seeing as they have large lithium reserves that leach into the groundwater there. But again, this is with dosages closer to the clinical and toxic levels, not to the levels they want to use for tap water. We already have data about the long-term effects of drinking lithium-rich water. Is there a higher incidence of the side effects in areas with naturally lithium-rich water? Are there more accidents due to slower impulses? Is there a higher incidence of lithium allergies? The literature I've read so far does not make any mention of this, and there have been no concerns about lithium levels in tap water thus far, as long as it does not reach the toxic levels like in the Andes. There is also no concern about eating lithium-rich food where the lithium levels are much higher than in the water. Some sources also say that lithium has an RDA of about 1mg. So I believe the point about bad side effects for doses that small is moot.

Now, what about the benefits? There have only been several studies examining lithium in tap water, and from what I have read so far, they were done in Texas, Japan, Austria, and Britain. The one done in Austria is pretty good, as they also took into account socio-economic factors and the availability of mental health providers and still found that lithium had an effect on suicide rates. However, we cannot base policy on just those four studies, no matter how convincing they are. Correlation does not equal causation after all, and there may be other extraneous factors affecting suicide rates (weather, perhaps).

What about lithium not found in tap water? There have been many other studies about that. Here is an article listing some of the benefits of lithium. (The site itself is a bit wacky, but I did look at the of the works cited, and they are legitimate.) Lithium may very well be part of the essential trace elements that our body needs to function, much like zinc or selenium.

If more studies are done and they show that the benefits of adding lithium to tap water outweigh the drawbacks, then I would not be opposed to it. Yes, you can filter or buy bottled water if you are concerned about crap in your water supply...but honestly, what is the point? With fluoride, for example, many of the tap or pitcher filters don't take out any of it, so you still end up drinking it. Lithium is a lighter element, so I bet less of it gets removed through filtration processes. Distillation is the only process that removes EVERYTHING and leaves 100% H2O. But I just have to remind you folks that tap water is tested more regularly and is more regulated than bottled water (source). Plus, you know, you'd be contributing to waste by buying bottled water. Tap water is taken very seriously by the EPA, so whatever goes in it will be subject to much review.

I'll rep you later Nekohime for the amount of research you put into it. What bothers me the most is that it's the idea of just putting it in the water 'just because' it has some benefits to it.

The difference between taking a Tylenol, or drinking a coffee, or having some sugar injected treat is that it's all my own choice. I choose if I want caffeine in my body, I choose if I want to take a pill that cuts off my receptors from telling me I have a headache (I hate pain killers, but that's not this topic so I'll leave it at that), and I choose if I want to have an artificially flavored treat. Those are all things I decide I want to consume at my own free will. So I believe even fluoride for that matter should be in bottled water instead of the main water supply. Don't put something that will help relax impulses in my body if I don't want it in my body, and putting it in the main water supply makes it very difficult to go without ending up with that in my body. It should be like anything else, something to buy. "Chill Man Water" etc. It should be an option where I am not almost forced to have it.

Why is it a big deal? Because I didn't say "Yes, I want this" it's the government saying "we think this will be best if you have this"

Water isn't free, it a consumer service. You pay for the water, but you also choose to drink that water too(at least that everywhere in this country i lived off base at.), municipal water is always full of weird chemicals.. unless your area has it own private water source void of things growing and redneck boating on. They will never put anything dangerous in your water supply anyways and even if they do.. you would know because their would be a vote, town hall meeting and so one protesting something. The water coming out of your faucet and the water you drink are the same thing, purify rain/ground/sewer/lake.. ect ect. No water is completely void of non h20 materials. Plus the ACLU or EPA wouldn't allow something detrimental to public interest to be instituted anyways. The public would or least would been notify if you have anything dangerous in their water supply. Is it a government know best situation.. probably.. but we elected the tards so hey maybe we should voice our opinion on them.. It still cheaper to use a well or buy my water then paid 75 bucks to drink toilet water.

I'm more concerned on the patriot act, gangs problems, the safety of my kids in this world and the dropping dollar rates and my money tie up in this new house then whats happening in Texas. might of well sell texas to mexico for better property in baja.

I feel like I'm going in circles here, nothing is really ever 100% free. There's a difference between paying a utility for water taxes for it, versus paying for a bottled water with sales tax on it.

You pay your rent for an apartment or morgage for a house, but that doesn't mean the government can just walk right in and grab a snack from the fridge whenever they want. It's still your right for that privacy.

Since when is putting a chemical into a water base to help reduce crime the only way to reduce crime? That's lazy. That's not fixing any problems.

The argument of "well we already have this shit in our food supply and water, so it doesn't matter if they add one more thing" is a really poor argument.

@Neko All my internets.

@Ziggy It's not about it being the only way to reduce crime, it's about it being an easy and proven effective way to reduce crime. Laziness has nothing to do with it, and it IS fixing some problems, by reducing the number of crimes occurring. I feel like you're taking this specific case and treating it as

{{What is wrong or right about chemically altering a communal resource without the knowledge or consent of the effected?}}

instead of

{{What is wrong or right about adding miniscule dosages of lithium to tap water in order to control impulses and reduce crime if it is done without the knowledge or consent of the effected?}}

Do you see the distinction?