Lithium profoundly prevents brain damage associated with Parkinson's disease - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;30694388]I'm curious: As there are locations in which there is a significant amount of lithium already present in the water supply, would you prefer it be removed? Which is the 'correct' natural state, naturally present lithium, or naturally absent lithium? Given that both states alter brain chemistry, what basis do you have to say that we should prefer lacking it?[/QUOTE] Assuming the water supply naturally has Li, it's fine. That's naturally occuring, and the people who were drinking the water with a high [Li] would already be consuming as much Li as they always have been, and their personality will be like it has been since they were born (assuming they keep drinking the same water). However, if the goverment starts adding Li to the water supply to water that didn't have as much Li as before, the people drinking that new water with the new [Li] will be influenced and have a changed personality, and change how they are, while if there were no goverment, they would act the same as before. [Li] means concentration of lithium, btw.

[QUOTE=Kendra;30700357]Assuming the water supply naturally has Li, it's fine. That's naturally occuring, and the people who were drinking the water with a high [Li] would already be consuming as much Li as they always have been, and their personality will be like it has been since they were born (assuming they keep drinking the same water). However, if the goverment starts adding Li to the water supply to water that didn't have as much Li as before, the people drinking that new water with the new [Li] will be influenced and have a changed personality, and change how they are, while if there were no goverment, they would act the same as before. [Li] means concentration of lithium, btw.[/QUOTE] Why does the concentration being natural excuse the levels? There are toxic levels of chemicals in untreated water, and probably some minor mind-altering chemicals in some locations - we remove the ones we deem to be negative. If the concentration of Lithium is a concern, we should be able to determine the preferable level of it, and remove or add as necessary. How is Lithium different than any other chemical in the water? If Lithium is harmful or negatively mind-altering: remove it from all sources (people can add it back in). If Lithium is helpful and not negatively mind-altering: add it to all sources (people can filter it back out).

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;30699743]Still waiting for a response to this Zeke, should be a simple question. [/QUOTE] Sorry, missed that one. There are varying amounts of all naturally occurring chemicals. If one is causing actual problems in regions where it's really high or really low then it's in the public's interest to fix it. But if one is being altered to ease the symptoms of a disease possessed by a minority of the public or worse, to actively change the behaviour of the public, then I can't find a moral justification for it.

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;30700405]Why does the concentration being natural excuse the levels? There are toxic levels of chemicals in untreated water, and probably some minor mind-altering chemicals in some locations - we remove the ones we deem to be negative. If the concentration of Lithium is a concern, we should be able to determine the preferable level of it, and remove or add as necessary. How is Lithium different than any other chemical in the water? If Lithium is harmful or negatively mind-altering: remove it from all sources (people can add it back in). If Lithium is helpful and not negatively mind-altering: add it to all sources (people can filter it back out).[/QUOTE] If someone's personality has developed with x concentration of Li, then it should stay at x. Even if x is higher than at y. Person drinking y water will have their own personality. If suddenly they switch around their water supply, their personalities will drastically change. If humans still live and are as (generally) intelligent as we are after a few hundred thousand years, it means the lithium in the water isn't harmful anywhere where humans live and drink.

If it really is an element that we need and our diets are deficient in it, then I see no problem with re-adding it to the water supply (enough to make up what we naturally need). However, if that's bullshit made up to justify putting a drug that makes us docile into the supply, then I'm well against it. More research required.

If it has good health benefits and reduces the chances of parkinsons disease I see no reason it should be added. People who complain about wanting their water pure are either paranoid or think this sort of thing is bad. Oh this has artificial colours and flavours boo fucking hoo. Just mix in the good stuff and take out the bad stuff. You will have excellent quality water that is cheap and healthy along with being tasty.

Like I said in the last thread about lithium in water supplies: It's very very unlikely that they want to make people docile. How would that help unemployment? Making people docile and lazy is idiotic in the current economic situation. A quick wikipedia search says that trace amounts of lithium are present in the oceans and in all organisms. They don't serve any vital biological functions, but they aren't BAD for you. Next, Lithium ITSELF does not alter moods. A lithium ion, Li+, is administered as a mood-stabilizing drug due to the effects of the ion on the body. Raw lithium isn't that - it's just lithium. The health effects are shown on Wikipedia as well. Remember, this is actual lithium, not the lithium ion Li+ which is used as a mood-stabilizing drug. "Nutritional studies in mammals have indicated its importance to health, leading to a suggestion that it be classed as an essential trace element with an RDA of 1 mg/day. Observational studies in Japan, reported in 2011, suggested that naturally occurring lithium in drinking water may increase human lifespan." They're trying to control us, dude :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;30699743]Still waiting for a response to this Zeke, should be a simple question. [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] Same question to you. There are chemicals in everything, and many are necessary to different levels. What do you know that demonstrates no Lithium to be healthier than Lithium, given that either level presents a different brain chemistry?[/QUOTE] Because if the research concluding that "lithium has been proven to lower crime rates" is true. Then it changes personalities. I really couldn't care less if it's naturally occurring, if my lithium levels change from what they have been for 19 years of my life, I change too. [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;30704972]Like I said in the last thread about lithium in water supplies: It's very very unlikely that they want to make people docile. How would that help unemployment? Making people docile and lazy is idiotic in the current economic situation. A quick wikipedia search says that trace amounts of lithium are present in the oceans and in all organisms. They don't serve any vital biological functions, but they aren't BAD for you. Next, Lithium ITSELF does not alter moods. A lithium ion, Li+, is administered as a mood-stabilizing drug due to the effects of the ion on the body. Raw lithium isn't that - it's just lithium. The health effects are shown on Wikipedia as well. Remember, this is actual lithium, not the lithium ion Li+ which is used as a mood-stabilizing drug. "Nutritional studies in mammals have indicated its importance to health, leading to a suggestion that it be classed as an essential trace element with an RDA of 1 mg/day. Observational studies in Japan, reported in 2011, suggested that naturally occurring lithium in drinking water may increase human lifespan." They're trying to control us, dude :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Lithium in it's pure form explodes in water... They are talking about a lithium ion.

really i know more than a few people who could benefit from this just put it in a controlled trial run and see the results

[QUOTE=.Isak.;30704972] "Nutritional studies in mammals have indicated its importance to health, leading to a suggestion that it be classed as an essential trace element with an RDA of 1 mg/day. Observational studies in Japan, reported in 2011, suggested that naturally occurring lithium in drinking water may increase human lifespan." They're trying to control us, dude :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] The same Japanese study you're quoting is the one that suggested it could be used to lower crime rates by making people calmer

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30706298]The same Japanese study you're quoting is the one that suggested it could be used to lower crime rates by making people calmer[/QUOTE] which is good

So Potassium cures Alzheimer's.

[QUOTE=Mon;30706710]which is good[/QUOTE] Making people calmer would undoubtedly have other, more negative effects

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30707179]Making people calmer would undoubtedly have other, more negative effects[/QUOTE] It's better than making them angrier.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30707719]It's better than making them angrier.[/QUOTE] Yes because that is the [b]only alternative[/b]

My gran was diagnosed with this last year. This is nice to hear.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30707769]Yes because that is the [b]only alternative[/b][/QUOTE] Or keeping the same. Cept then they will still be angrier than without lithium.

As Kurt Cobain once said: YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHHH

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30707179]Making people calmer would undoubtedly have other, more negative effects[/QUOTE] like rational, thought out decision making i assume

Apparently one of the contributions to the many wars and violence in the middle east might be due to that there are low levels of lithium in the bread they eat. At once point a guy suggested that marmite be shipped for them to eat as marmite contains lithium. It's always worth a shot to try the lithium idea if it really does reduce violence.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30710078]Apparently one of the contributions to the many wars and violence in the middle east might be due to that there are low levels of lithium in the bread they eat. At once point a guy suggested that marmite be shipped for them to eat as marmite contains lithium. It's always worth a shot to try the lithium idea if it really does reduce violence.[/QUOTE] Do you have anything to back this up If any of you want to see why society needs anger sometimes you only need to look at the revolutions in Libya, Egypt, etc If you're right about the low lithium levels there being the cause of it, I'd say it's good for them

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30706298]The same Japanese study you're quoting is the one that suggested it could be used to lower crime rates by making people calmer[/QUOTE] the horror! relieving stress! NWO ILLUMINATI !!!! [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] making populations less stressful is bad? come on dude, I understand that maybe...it might be bad to change people's moods, but I don't really see it that way

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30711741]the horror! relieving stress! NWO ILLUMINATI !!!! [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] making populations less stressful is bad? come on dude, I understand that maybe...it might be bad to change people's moods, but I don't really see it that way[/QUOTE] Pacifying the public IS changing people's moods

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30711766]Pacifying the public IS changing people's moods[/QUOTE] Or is it just giving people what they were intended to have? Maybe the reason populations/people are more violent is because of the lack of lithium in the drinking water/food?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30694876]Not without their consent, no Especially not without further research[/QUOTE] Further research part is key here people. This is PreClinical as in, "We have tested at least 50% of what we're aiming for." Its a shell experiment to see if it COULD work. [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30711766]Pacifying the public IS changing people's moods[/QUOTE] ....Soooo letting them pacify themselves is fine?

[QUOTE=Swilly;30711897] ....Soooo letting them pacify themselves is fine?[/QUOTE] Yeah if someone wants to take lithium on their own there isn't a problem with that [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;30711809]Or is it just giving people what they were intended to have? Maybe the reason populations/people are more violent is because of the lack of lithium in the drinking water/food?[/QUOTE] If you want us to have what we intended to have, you should go measure the amount of lithium in the groundwater in Africa 200000 years ago or so and make sure the whole globe has that amount

[QUOTE=Swilly;30711897]....Soooo letting them pacify themselves is fine?[/QUOTE] Yeah dude, it's their choice,people should be able to do anything they want with their body. [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30712150]Yeah if someone wants to take lithium on their own there isn't a problem with that [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] If you want us to have what we intended to have, you should go measure the amount of lithium in the groundwater in Africa 200000 years ago or so and make sure the whole globe has that amount[/QUOTE] Alright

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30711766]Pacifying the public IS changing people's moods[/QUOTE] Heavy metals alter the functions of the brain, which causes distinct mental states to people that lack those heavy metals. We know that continuing to receive heavy metals will kill you, but low concentrations of heavy metals can be non-fatal, and even insignificant. Suppose a heavy metal is found to be in a water supply somewhere, where higher concentrations lead to different mental states, and a significant amount will kill you. The concentrations in this hypothetical water supply are insufficient to kill you over your life time, or even to debilitate you. However, the concentrations are sufficient that your mood will gradually change over your life. Should the lead be removed from the water?

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;30712789] Should the lead be removed from the water?[/QUOTE] Perhaps a referendum is in order. That being said, nature altering people and the state altering people are completely different things.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30712837]Perhaps a referendum is in order. That being said, nature altering people and the state altering people are completely different things.[/QUOTE] Obviously the reason I'm asking because I'm wondering what your preferred course of action would be, or your vote in your suggested referendum. 'Ask everyone else' isn't really useful in a discussion. The state already alters people by removing and adding chemicals to and from the water. I'm just curious why you would be opposed to the state matching natural levels in other areas, which seems to be 'because the state did it.' It seems out of character for you.