Add lithium to drinking water

Babyblue said:
Well each person weighs a different kg. So that is a impossible statement since the Mg amount will not adjust to the kg the persons weights. In tap water.

also the mg/kg statement is also utterly FALSE....

Say if a person is 50kg and the mg is 525. The dose of the lithium would be adjusted for that person that weights. 50kg or 110 lbs. Comes to be that person can take up to 26,250 mg according to the quoted statement.....that person will not Overdose?? :shock:
I am not sure where you got your info from, but 26,250 mg is an extremely toxic dose of lithium.
Click to expand...

I am not sure but do you realize you only prove my point? You'd need about 200 of lithium pills to got a lethal dose? It's not toxic when you drink lithium from water in trace amounts.

Safety (MSDS) data for lithium carbonate

Lithium Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 525 mg kg
IPR-RAT LD50 156 mg kg
SCU-RAT LD50 434 mg kg
IVN-RAT LD50 241 mg kg

Hardly toxic compared to selenium (absolutely required for health):

SELENIUM

A dose of selenium as small as 5 mg per day can be lethal for many humans.

Periodic Table of Elements: Selenium - Se (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

Selenium is found in water as well.

Copper is essential but has even worse LD50 - just 3.5mg/kg.

Point here is that it's the dose that counts. All substances are poisons if they reach beyond the point where your body cannot metabolize.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Peoplel drink bottled water to avoid these things already. They will continue to do so. Adding lithium to the water will not result in people consuming that to which the lithium has been added. It will simply provide another reason to avoid it.
Click to expand...

And they waste money. :/
 
netrox said:
I am not sure but do you realize you only prove my point? You'd need about 200 of lithium pills to got a lethal dose? It's not toxic when you drink lithium from water in trace amounts.

Safety (MSDS) data for lithium carbonate

Lithium Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 525 mg kg
IPR-RAT LD50 156 mg kg
SCU-RAT LD50 434 mg kg
IVN-RAT LD50 241 mg kg

Hardly toxic compared to selenium (absolutely required for health):

SELENIUM

A dose of selenium as small as 5 mg per day can be lethal for many humans.

Periodic Table of Elements: Selenium - Se (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

Selenium is found in water as well.

Copper is essential but has even worse LD50 - just 3.5mg/kg.

Point here is that it's the dose that counts. All substances are poisons if they reach beyond the point where your body cannot metabolize.
Click to expand...

You go and take 26,250 mg of lithium and come back and tell me. Seriously... DON'T....
 
jillio said:
There is virtually no proof of that.
Click to expand...

Hence we need to repeat the studies!

I'd say, "Bring it on!" And also, more magnesium!

"Magnesium in drinking water and ischemic heart disease"

Magnesium in drinking water and ischemic heart dis... [Epidemiol Rev. 1997] - PubMed result

Scientists have observed that people in areas with higher levels of magnesium in their drinking water exhibit rates of sudden cardiac death that are three to four times lower than those of people living in municipalities with the lowest magnesium levels in drinking water. This has drawn the attention of national and international public health officials. For example, a recent World Health Organization (WHO) report on the quality of drinking water cited 80 studies that have examined the relationship between cardiovascular death and water “hardness” (measured principally by magnesium and calcium content). The WHO concluded that the magnesium content of water is indeed a cardiovascular risk factor and that supplementing drinking water with magnesium should be a priority, much as fluoride became one. To date, however, no action has been taken.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/feb2007_report_water_01.htm
 
netrox said:
Hence we need to repeat the studies!

I'd say, "Bring it on!" And also, more magnesium!

"Magnesium in drinking water and ischemic heart disease"

Magnesium in drinking water and ischemic heart dis... [Epidemiol Rev. 1997] - PubMed result

Scientists have observed that people in areas with higher levels of magnesium in their drinking water exhibit rates of sudden cardiac death that are three to four times lower than those of people living in municipalities with the lowest magnesium levels in drinking water. This has drawn the attention of national and international public health officials. For example, a recent World Health Organization (WHO) report on the quality of drinking water cited 80 studies that have examined the relationship between cardiovascular death and water “hardness” (measured principally by magnesium and calcium content). The WHO concluded that the magnesium content of water is indeed a cardiovascular risk factor and that supplementing drinking water with magnesium should be a priority, much as fluoride became one. To date, however, no action has been taken.

Magnesium Deficiency: Is Your Bottled Water Killing You? - Life Extension
Click to expand...

Yeah, Lets add a little bit of this and a little bit of that. No matter if they contradict each other or have any interactions.

Hard water has also contributed to Urolithiasis, and other problems.
 
Babyblue said:
Yeah, Lets add a little bit of this and a little bit of that. No matter if they contradict each other or have any interactions.

Hard water has also contributed to Urolithiasis, and other problems.
Click to expand...

The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.
 
netrox said:
The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.
Click to expand...

That's cold.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though, since a philosophy is something that can change every week. :)
 
netrox said:
The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Why not eliminate tobacco use instead? It's well established that it's bad for one's health. Simple.
 
Glenn said:
Why not eliminate tobacco use instead? It's well established that it's bad for one's health. Simple.
Click to expand...

Of course, we've saved more lives thanks to anti-smoking efforts.

Smokers may argue that smoking saves them from having dementia thanks to nicotine but nicotine has deadly effect on heart (most smokers die of heart disease, lung cancer isn't the main cause of death among smokers).

But I take offense at alcohol!!!
 
Hmmm. I know what causes earthquakes, but the thing is, I will have to totally destroy Seattle and all its people in order to prove it. Seattle has a population of 2.5 million, and in the grand scheme of things, isn't that a small price to pay in order to prevent future earthquakes? After all, 2.5 million is one half of one percent of the population in the USA. Acceptable. Totally acceptable. Isn't it? ;)
 
Back
Top