4 ms·

> The authors discovered that people whose water had the least amount of lithium had significantly greater levels of suicide, homicide and rape than the people

> The authors discovered that people whose water had the least amount of lithium had significantly greater levels of suicide, homicide and rape than the people whose water had the higher levels of lithium. The group whose water had the highest lithium level had nearly 40 percent fewer suicides than that with the lowest lithium level. I can't but help wonder whether higher levels of lithium also correlate with a clean water supply, which would indicate a more affluent community. It may simply be the case that those areas with cleaner water have a better economy, and thus less crime, etc. Although lithium undoubtedly has antidepressant effects. It's funny this article popped up on here. Today I was actually reading about how chromium picolinate was found to have a positive effect on those with atypical depression. It can be purchased from any vitamin store. It makes me wonder if trace elements (lithium, chromium, etc.) are vital to the brain's proper functioning via some as yet undiscovered mechanism. Also, why is it that you have to have a prescription to get certain compounds, but other ones you can just purchase yourself? Is it simply the potential for toxicity?

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
> Is it simply the potential for toxicity? Probably not. Acetaminophen is otc, yet rather toxic. I've always thought it was the potential to have unearned fun.
lutusp 12y ago
> I can't but help wonder whether higher levels of lithium also correlate with a clean water supply, which would indicate a more affluent community. Not likely, because the water supply of an affluent community would have highly filtered water containing few "impurities" including lithium. Further, if the community in question were conservative in their political views, the water might even lack fluoride, another component with known beneficial traits but one that has become a political issue in some places. > Also, why is it that you have to have a prescription to get certain compounds, but other ones you can just purchase yourself? Is it simply the potential for toxicity? No, it revolves around the issue of medical applications. If a substance has known medical applications, then its dissemination will likely be controlled by the FDA. Even advertising a substance's possible medical benefits is not permitted in the general case, without FDA approval and substantial controls. For example, if I sell willow bark as writing paper, no problem. If I sell it as a pain-killer without possessing medical authority, I will be in a heap of trouble.
ConceptJunkie 12y ago
Any scientific study that wasn't run by idiots would take those other variables into account.
gwern 12y ago
> I can't but help wonder whether higher levels of lithium also correlate with a clean water supply, which would indicate a more affluent community. It may simply be the case that those areas with cleaner water have a better economy, and thus less crime, etc. I don't think it would. Typically both rich and poor communities would only be enforcing the FDA ceiling on lithium levels, which seems to be high enough that remediation is rarely (ever?) necessary, so rich/poor wouldn't correlate with levels much if all. The confounds which have come up as particularly plausible tend to deal with locations of mental hospitals, urban vs rural, and local food consumption.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

> Is it simply the potential for toxicity? Probably not. Acetaminophen is otc, yet rather toxic. I've always thought it was the potential to have unearned fun.

lutusp 12y ago

> I can't but help wonder whether higher levels of lithium also correlate with a clean water supply, which would indicate a more affluent community. Not likely, because the water supply of an affluent community would have highly filtered water containing few "impurities" including lithium. Further, if the community in question were conservative in their political views, the water might even lack fluoride, another component with known beneficial traits but one that has become a political issue in some places. > Also, why is it that you have to have a prescription to get certain compounds, but other ones you can just purchase yourself? Is it simply the potential for toxicity? No, it revolves around the issue of medical applications. If a substance has known medical applications, then its dissemination will likely be controlled by the FDA. Even advertising a substance's possible medical benefits is not permitted in the general case, without FDA approval and substantial controls. For example, if I sell willow bark as writing paper, no problem. If I sell it as a pain-killer without possessing medical authority, I will be in a heap of trouble.

ConceptJunkie 12y ago

Any scientific study that wasn't run by idiots would take those other variables into account.

gwern 12y ago

> I can't but help wonder whether higher levels of lithium also correlate with a clean water supply, which would indicate a more affluent community. It may simply be the case that those areas with cleaner water have a better economy, and thus less crime, etc. I don't think it would. Typically both rich and poor communities would only be enforcing the FDA ceiling on lithium levels, which seems to be high enough that remediation is rarely (ever?) necessary, so rich/poor wouldn't correlate with levels much if all. The confounds which have come up as particularly plausible tend to deal with locations of mental hospitals, urban vs rural, and local food consumption.