jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on May 25, 2011 13:54:04 GMT -5
Great, I live in Arizona we already have arsenic and fluoride in our water, I'm sure they will be the first to add lithium to our water.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 13:58:54 GMT -5
So, mmhmm-- from your posts here your argument is that it is both a large enough amount to hurt people and a large enough amount to help people. Are the lives of possible suicides more important than the lives of others it could kill?? How does that work?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 14:00:47 GMT -5
jeep, from a fellow Arizonan.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 25, 2011 14:00:50 GMT -5
Personally, I'm not overly opposed to adding something to the water that is shown to have beneficial results & occurs naturally in many water supplies. People that don't like it can drink bottled water.
How about you start thinking along the lines of majority rules. The majority of people don't kill themselves and the majority of people don't kill other people. Yet again a tiny percentage of the populace forces the entire remaining to be subjected to experiments that have unintended consequences 100% of the time. I don't really care how many people kill themselves or how many this idiot thinks would be saved by putting lithium in tap water. Again, people who even contemplate such lunacy should be shot. That would be much better for society than drugging up water and food supplies.
Dalton McGuinty Burns III
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 14:23:27 GMT -5
I guess by that logic we shouldn't have to have legislation putting seat belts or airbags in cars either since most people don't get in bad car accidents.
Majority rules isn't the way the country functions. Also, I just said I am not opposed to the idea, doesn't mean I am going to go out & lobby for lithium in the water. It just means I am not going to start screaming about how they are killing everyone & taking away our rights.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 25, 2011 14:32:09 GMT -5
I guess by that logic we shouldn't have to have legislation putting seat belts or airbags in cars either since most people don't get in bad car accidents.
You are correct. I also do not want to pay $500 for mandated stability control in cars because some people do not know how to drive. How about delayed traffic lights where you have to sit an extra 3 seconds because .01% of people run red lights. Time permitting I could go on and you would begin to realize how controlled your life is because of liberal/progressive policies. /Dalton
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 14:36:02 GMT -5
The problem with lithium, Angel, is the difference between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose is very, very small. Those already on lithium could be pushed over the edge by additional lithium taken in through drinking water, since lithium tends to make one a bit thirsty, anyway. Those with renal problems would also be at risk as their kidneys don't clear the lithium from the system properly and it builds up in the blood stream. Those would be my concerns. For the average person, there'd be absolutely no problems. In fact, most people aren't aware they're taking lithium in every day of their lives. It's naturally found in the body and is in the foods we eat. It's not a "psych drug", as some might think. It's a mineral salt naturally found in RNA and DNA. Fair enough, like I said I am not familiar with lithium toxicity. I was just thinking something as small as a 1% variance could easily be found within the pills themselves & if an amount that small could be toxic, then it seems like we would be having lots of cases of lithium toxicity. Actually, we do see lithium toxicity rather often, considering not that many people are taking it over and above what they get from foods and what exists naturally in the body. Those who take it for medical reasons are prone to toxicity, particularly during the early stages of treatment when the body must establish the correct level. Toxic doses are nothing to sneeze at, and we need to be careful what we do with regard to such minerals, even when they're natural to the body. Potassium is natural to the body, too, but too much of it in the bloodstream will kill ya!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 14:36:51 GMT -5
Too much of anything will kill ya.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on May 25, 2011 14:38:40 GMT -5
I'm opposed to it. They only have a suspected link right now. Some people react badly to lithium, and it can get toxic quickly. People taking it have to get their blood tested regularly. Also, I am against the government adding anything except chlorine to my water. Fluoride is getting another look because they are finding that long term use can cause teeth staining and brittle bones.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 14:40:42 GMT -5
So, mmhmm-- from your posts here your argument is that it is both a large enough amount to hurt people and a large enough amount to help people. Are the lives of possible suicides more important than the lives of others it could kill?? How does that work? No, krickitt. I at no time used the word "large" in relation to the amounts of lithium we're talking about here. That's your word, not mine. What I'm saying is (I thought I said this pretty clearly before) people with renal problems (lithium is cleared by the kidneys) or those taking lithium for medical reasons don't need the extra lithium in drinking water. If an individual taking lithium is already at therapeutic levels and drinks a lot of lithium-laced water, the result could be toxicity. It's pure common sense, not complicated, at all. If you'd read what I actually post instead of deciding what you think I mean, you'd find it really is pretty simple.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 14:40:59 GMT -5
I guess by that logic we shouldn't have to have legislation putting seat belts or airbags in cars either since most people don't get in bad car accidents.You are correct. I also do not want to pay $500 for mandated stability control in cars because some people do not know how to drive. How about delayed traffic lights where you have to sit an extra 3 seconds because .01% of people run red lights. Time permitting I could go on and you would begin to realize how controlled your life is because of liberal/progressive policies. /Dalton A lot of it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. The cost of having a fatal accident is huge. The cost of delaying everyone by an additonal second at each light they get stopped at is far less. By that logic, it is cheaper to save a single life by extending the red light time. A lot of these other decisions are probably made the same way, we just don't see it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on May 25, 2011 14:42:08 GMT -5
I read a study that showed a strong correlation between increased weight at 2 years old, and hitting puberty at a younger age. They think just the sheer added calories speed up the rate at which a girl can mature.
My daughter was underweight as a two year old, and still isn't up to average for her height or age - so I will let you know in 3 or 4 years.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 14:44:03 GMT -5
I read a study that showed a strong correlation between increased weight at 2 years old, and hitting puberty at a younger age. They think just the sheer added calories speed up the rate at which a girl can mature. My daughter was underweight as a two year old, and still isn't up to average for her height or age - so I will let you know in 3 or 4 years. That is interesting. If there is a link, then earlier puberty makes sense considering that childhood obesity is rising.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 14:47:17 GMT -5
mmhmm- in #25 you say a small dose can harm, in #31 you say small doses can be helpful. You just like to disagree with me as often as possible. I stand by my post. Your words, not mine.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on May 25, 2011 14:48:47 GMT -5
The study was females only. I don't know if anyone is trying to link overweight boys and puberty.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 14:57:37 GMT -5
mmhmm- in #25 you say a small dose can harm, in #31 you say small doses can be helpful. You just like to disagree with me as often as possible. I stand by my post. Your words, not mine. Krickitt, for Pete's sake! A small dose ADDED TO a sufficient dose makes too much dose! A small dose not added to any medical dose and not taken in by someone not suffering from renal disease will be just a small dose. It's not added to an already existing blood level. Do you understand yet? I won't even honor the last part of your post with a reply.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 25, 2011 15:38:55 GMT -5
It's pure common sense, not complicated, at all.
Right, so how about using a little of it yourself. Naturally speaking, we are not supposed to be exposed to any extra chemicals or drugs at all no matter how small. Even if "naturally occurring" it doesn't mean amounts should be added, unnaturally, to any substance ingested.
|
|
reader79
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 8:48:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,053
|
Post by reader79 on May 25, 2011 15:48:05 GMT -5
Miranda Miranda is the name of a planet located beyond Reaver territory.[1] It orbits the protostar Burnham, the eighth and final planet in the Blue Sun system.[2] It was home to an Alliance colony with a population of 30 million. The Alliance experimented on the population to find a way to make people more controllable. However the experiments with "G-23 paxilon hydrochlorate", or "Pax" (Pax is a Latin word meaning Peace), failed: 99.9% of the population became so passive that they essentially lost the will to live. The opposite effect was observed in the remaining 0.1% of the population, who became extremely aggressive and butchered the Alliance scientists in charge of the experiments. This portion of the population escaped and became the Reavers. The Alliance tried to cover up what had happened on the planet by creating a story that the colony was lost due to failure in the terraforming equipment. Like Ariel, Miranda shares its name both with a character from The Tempest and a moon of Uranus. Featured in Serenity. Sigh.....
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 15:54:10 GMT -5
Naturally speaking, we are not supposed to be exposed to any extra chemicals or drugs at all no matter how small. Based on what? Vitamins & many minerals are necessary for healthy life.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 15:57:59 GMT -5
It's pure common sense, not complicated, at all.Right, so how about using a little of it yourself. Naturally speaking, we are not supposed to be exposed to any extra chemicals or drugs at all no matter how small. Even if "naturally occurring" it doesn't mean amounts should be added, unnaturally, to any substance ingested. You sound like a liberal talking about global warming. That statement is complete hogwash.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on May 25, 2011 15:59:50 GMT -5
Can we start with my cranky animals?
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on May 25, 2011 16:04:37 GMT -5
Very low levels of lithium in drinking water may help prevent suicide in the general population, according to a new study. Researchers at Oita University in Japan measured natural lithium levels in tap water in 18 communities in the surrounding region of southern Japan. The lithium levels ranged between 0.7 micrograms per litre and 59 micrograms per litre. The researchers then calculated the suicide rate in each of the 18 areas. They found that the suicide rate was significantly lower in those areas with the highest levels of lithium in the water. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers said: "Our study suggests that very low levels of lithium in drinking water can lower the risk of suicide. Very low levels may possess an anti-suicidal effect." Lithium is a naturally occurring metal found in variable amounts in food and water. In medicine, very high doses are used to treat bipolar disorder and mood disorders. But so far the potential benefit of using low levels of lithium to reduce the risk of suicide has not been studied closely. www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5251365/Natural-levels-of-lithium-in-drinking-water-help-reduce-suicides.htmlWouldn't be surprised to see it come to pass.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on May 25, 2011 16:18:28 GMT -5
Based on what? Vitamins & many minerals are necessary for healthy life.
Thats right, vitamins and minerals consumed naturally in the foods that contain them. Adding extra quantities and other schemes such as jacking the food sources with hormones and antibiotics has consequences. That is just plain common sense, which I have plenty of. It appears Mr. Archie is lacking it somewhat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 21:41:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2011 16:19:24 GMT -5
Are you becoming a liberal , burns?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 16:21:19 GMT -5
Based on what? Vitamins & many minerals are necessary for healthy life.Thats right, vitamins and minerals consumed naturally in the foods that contain them. Adding extra quantities and other schemes such as jacking the food sources with hormones and antibiotics has consequences. That is just plain common sense, which I have plenty of. It appears Mr. Archie is lacking it somewhat. Extra vitamins & minerals are added to food & water all the time. Bad minerals are often removed from water, even though they are "naturally occurring" I think your view is only common sense for people with no knowledge on the subject.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 16:24:45 GMT -5
As I said, I'm not in favor of adding lithium to drinking water; particularly, since the effects of doing so have not been studied to any appreciable degree. There's a lot to be considered before taking such a step, IMO.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 25, 2011 16:36:06 GMT -5
As I said, I'm not in favor of adding lithium to drinking water; particularly, since the effects of doing so have not been studied to any appreciable degree. There's a lot to be considered before taking such a step, IMO. I'm not necessarily for it, but I'm not against the idea either. I understand some of the concerns like lithium toxicity, which you clearly know more about than me. What I don't buy is the argument that natural is better & therefore we shouldn't add stuff to the water.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,940
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on May 25, 2011 16:53:23 GMT -5
My Dad takes lithium. He has some pretty serious mobility issues - don't know if it is related to the lithium or not. He now also possibly is showing some signs of Parkinson's don't know if that is related to 40 some years of taking lithium or not. Dad has a monthly (If I remember correctly) blood test to verify his lithium levels are correct (not toxic).
So, if they added lithium to the water for the general population what will they do to ensure the average citizen is not going toxic?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 16:54:10 GMT -5
I think we agree on the basics, Angel. In this case, a good deal more study is needed to determine if the addition of lithium will really be a good idea. I'd like to see my concerns addressed, and more information about both benefits and possible detrimental effects.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2011 17:05:15 GMT -5
The small amounts they're talking about adding, bean, are not going to cause an average person to develop a toxic serum level. The doses given for medical treatment are much higher. The average person will rid themselves of any excess through the kidneys, which process the lithium. You get lithium in your food, so it's not a dangerous thing for the body. It's necessary for RNA and DNA. The worry would be those, like your father, who are on high-dose lithium and those who are in chronic renal failure. It's doubtful that lithium caused your father's Parkinson's disease (if it is Parkinson's disease). Early on in treatment, lithium can cause tremors and some bradykinesia and stiffness, but these symptoms usually disappear within a relatively short time. I don't know how old your father is, but it might be worth checking with his doctor to see if he might be able to be weaned off the lithium to see if the symptoms he's experiencing lessen, or disappear. After 40 years of treatment, it's just possible he might not need the lithium any longer (depending on why it was prescribed ... I'm guessing it was for bipolar disorder). It would certainly be worth approaching the subject with his doctor.
|
|