Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:31pm - 109 Comments

Mike Moffatt considers how much it would cost to increase the lithium levels in drinking water, and how much might be gained as a result.

The city of Toronto has 3.3 murders/100,000 people (Source).  A 30% reduction in this rate would lower it by 1 murder per year per 100,000 people.  If our rough back-of-the-envelope calculations are correct and the lithium carbonate method works like the Texas study suggests, $153,000 buys us one less murder.  That does not take into account the reductions in rapes, suicides, drug use or thefts.

Will it work?  I don’t know.  It seems like it would be worthy a pilot study or two. Although those levels of elemental lithium are believed to be safe, there may be side-effects we are not considering.  There are ethical considerations as well, but it is hard to make a case that adding fluoride to the water supply is ethical but lithium is not – and we’ve been adding fluoride to drinking water for over half a century.

Bookmark and Share
  • LiveblogginJunkie

    Idea Alert? Well, putting mind controlling chemicals in the water is an 'idea' and one I appreciate beinging alerted to.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      This is an interesting comment. You seem to question what the title means, and then you explain exactly what the title means. If you understood that the point of this post was to "alert" you to an "idea" doesn't that kinda make your post redundant?

  • gottabesaid

    In my own studies, I have found that my happiness levels increase directly in relation to the amount of scotch I add to my drinking water.

    • McC_

      indeed! but is the correlation always direct, or do your happiness-to-scotch levels kinda make a bell after a while? ;-)

      • gottabesaid

        For some reason I lose consciousness before any dip in the bell curve. Weird. I must continue my studies.

      • gottabesaid

        I have also found that my 'bar fight' levels increase directly in relation to the amount of rye I add to my drinking water.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      I've always preferred not to mix my scotch with anything, although I acknowledge that adding a little water is an entirely acceptable personal choice.

      But TAP WATER!?!?! If you're adding tap water to anything but the cheapest of scotches that's just WRONG.

      • McC_

        I use a Brita…

      • gottabesaid

        So my cheap scotch ain't good enough fer you, yer MAJESTY…

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          I've got nothing against cheap scotch, I'd just prefer to drink mine straight and to ensure that all but the very cheapest bottles are DEFENDED against pollution by tap water.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Your cheap scotch is fine, just don't pollute it with tap water.

  • Emily

    Mike Moffat has already been drinking something funny in his water by the sound of it.

  • http://www.twitter.com/neiljedmondson Neil Edmondson

    "it is hard to make a case that adding fluoride to the water supply is ethical but lithium is not"

    Yeah. Hard like calculus. Anyway, would somebody buy this chap a copy of Brave New World next Christmas and highlight the parts about soma?

  • alfanerd

    Mike Moffatt considers how much it would cost to put increase the lithium levels in drinking water, and how much might be gained as a result.

    Gee Aaron, considering that your daily output of conservative-hate is limited to just a few lines a day, you could at least spend a few minutes re-reading your stuff.

    I cant imagine how you could convince your boss to put increase your salary level otherwise.

    • gottabesaid

      You're missing an apostrophe in can't in your last sentence.

      • alfanerd

        You're right. And now thanks to your reply I cant go and edit my post. This mistake will follow me forever Im afraid.

        • gottabesaid

          You're missing an apostrophe in 'can't' and in 'I'm.'

          This is fun!

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Heh. Let he who is error-free cast the first stone. Personally, I've always been too chagrined about my own typos to feel comfortable mocking others for theirs.

          • gottabesaid

            I totaly agree.

          • alfanerd

            Also agreed, but I take exception to Aaron's sloppiness. Unlike us, he's actually paid to do this!

          • alfanerd

            I concede.

          • Mike T.

            His use of "cant" isn't a typo so much as a fruedian slip!

  • Olivier

    A rather intriguing idea.

    That last sentence does offer a good point.

    • Emily

      Only if you can't tell the difference between something to improve dental health, and a behaviour-modifying substance.

      • Al O'Wishes

        So dental health is more important than mental health?

  • Fido

    If Moffat's idea is made reality, say goodbye to blog comment boards. What will I do with all the spare time? Get a job?

    Nah! Bad idea.

  • alfanerd

    Aaron, Im glad you've stopped pretending to be anything but a complete totalitarian, now that you're openly advocating putting mind control drugs in the water supply.

    • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

      Are you really this stupid or is it an act?

      • alfanerd

        Please Robert, in this age where mere words lead fanatics who are lurking EVERYWHERE to violent acts, let us speak to each other politely.

        Did I misread the blog post or is Aaron not promoting the idea of adding lithium to the water supply? Please help me understand, I am but a knuckle-dragging mouth breathing neanderthal.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          How is pointing out that an idea exists "promoting" the idea?

          I see nothing in Wherry's post to indicate whether he thinks Moffat is brilliant or crazy. Can you point me to Wherry's "open advocacy" of this idea, 'cause I don't see it here.

          • alfanerd

            Well the idea has a lot more visibility now that Aaron put it up on his website. That could be said to "promote" the idea.

            As for "openly advocating", that might be a stretch.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'd say that first one is a bit of a stretch in this context too, unless one is willing to argue that a library that owns a copy of Mein Kampf is thereby "promoting" Mein Kampf by including it in it's public catalogue.

          • alfanerd

            Depends, if Mein Kampf is on the front display with the suggestion that "Mike Moffat (or anyone else) says that much can be gained from reading this book", I would say they are promoting it.

            Anyhow, further to McC_'s thoughtful comments on this topic I realize that this may in fact not be as totally horrible as I first guessed. But Im still far from convinced.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Yes, and if Wherry had made a post saying "Mike Moffat says that much can be gained from putting lithium in drinking water" he might, I suppose, be "promoting" Moffat's idea, but that's not what Wherry said.

            How Wherry DID introduce the quote which was by saying "Mike Moffat considers how much it would cost to increase the lithium levels in drinking water, and how much might be gained as a result" (that MIGHT is a pretty key word I think). Sounds to me like a pretty straight up factual presentation of what Mike Moffat wrote, akin to a library catalogue's entry giving a factual description of the contents of Mein Kampf to me.

          • A_logician

            One of alfanerd's missing apostrophes has found its way into your "in it's public catalogue" comment.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            That's actually one of MY missing apostrophes. I felt bad about leaving one out elsewhere, and this is my attempt at finding balance.

      • Emily

        Strange isn't it? Cons consistenly manage to misread plain English, and it's clear they also don't understand the meaning of the words they use.

    • McC_

      does an element count as a mind control drug? This isn't a snark. It's a genuine question. Lithium has long been prescribed to treat bipolar disorder, but that fact doesn't in itself make it a "drug." Consider the kinds of weird effects that deficiencies of other elements can have.

      • alfanerd

        Well I dont know I just assumed it was. As far as I know on this topic, and it isnt much, there is no reason why a single element couldnt be a drug, specially if its psychoactive like lithium certainly is. Also Im not sure whether our body needs lithium like it needs magnesium, zinc, potassium…

        • McC_

          But those are all good questions right? and they're hard to ask when our initial reaction is revulsion (mine was too).

          • alfanerd

            Absolutely. I was under the impression lithium was a potent psychoactive drug. You know, this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes I am wrong.

          • Thwim

            The shock comes more from knowing that you sometimes realize that.

          • alfanerd

            Its not given to everyone to be perfect like you Thwim.

      • McC_

        For example, a quick google search found this quote "Considering the prevalence of iron deficiency, and considering the potential public health importance of the putative psychological impairment resulting from iron deficiency, it is remarkable how little is known of the neurobiological role of iron." in the book: Trace Element Neurobiology and Deficiencies, Volume 2 By Ivor E. Dreosti, Richard M. Smith, 1983 (a little old, but you should get the idea abotu the kinds of questions involved, questions that I am hopelessly unqualified to answer)

      • Jan

        The proposal is to use it as a mind control drug.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          That's one way to describe what the proposal is, but if we were talking about putting iron in the water because studies have shown that iron deficiencies lead to psychological problems would you say that the proposal was to use iron as a mind control drug? What if we were talking about adding Vitamin C to water if Vitamin C had been shown to reduce violent psychological problems, would we say that the proposal was to use Vitamin C as a mind control drug?

          Not that I'm advocating for this proposal, or even saying that your characterization is wrong, but I think your characterization is an oversimplification if you're just basing it on the information available here.

        • Thwim

          Putting flouride in the water is to keep people happy because they aren't suffering tooth decay.

    • McC_

      PS, Linda Richman didn't necessarily believe that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire just because she proposed it as a topic for talking amongst yourselves.

      • alfanerd

        fair point

  • MostlyCivil

    Don't get the flouride weirdos started…

    • McC_

      won't somebody pleeeease think of our essential fluids?!

      • lgarvin

        Who'd have guessed that grain alcohol and rain water are what the sane man will be drinking in the future.

        • McC_

          rain water? ewww, that's cloud pee.

          • lgarvin

            LOL You must have a pre-schooler.

          • McC_

            not yet, but we're steeling ourselves!

  • bergkamp

    Is this serious proposal or is this 'seems like good idea after a few drinks' thought?

    In theory, this might seem like sensible idea but I am willing to bet my house that Canadians across political spectrum will go batsh*t crazy if government proposes to put lithium in our water.

    Government might get away with it 50 years ago or somesuch but now matter how often pols talk about Japan and Texas, people are not going to react well to Government plan to put mind controlling substance in our water to control populace's behaviour.

  • gottabesaid

    …meanwhile, back at Conservative Campaign Headquarters…

    "Look at this study, Lord Harper. It says the mind can be controlled by small amounts of a certain chemical in the drinking water."

    "I see. Good work, Lt. Clement. Mind control, eh? It just might work…"

    …meanwhile, on Election Night with Peter Mansbridge…

    "In a stunning electoral victory, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have carried 100 per cent of the vote in the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Pundits are at a loss to explain this unprecedented campaign success…"

    • bergkamp

      " It seems like it would be worthy a pilot study or two."

      I thought of same idea, different dialogue, after I read sentence about pilot study or two.

    • Jan

      I suspect Harper has already been experimenting with it with his MP's.

      • gottabesaid

        Nah… his sound economic policies, rock-solid commitment to family and community, and dedication to this great country are intoxicating enough.

        …hmm… this water tastes kinda funny… oh well.

        • Jan

          Have you read Tony Clement's Tweets? He's really, really high on life, or something…

          • MostlyCivil

            Lithium just calms one down. It dioIt doesn't remove common sense.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        Isn't the theory supposed to be that lithium makes people LESS crazy? If this is true, where's the evidence that it's been given to Tory MPs?

        (LOL… j/k of course!)

  • McC_

    I was horrified by the headline, but my shock decreased significantly when I got to the part where the studies pointed out that there are communities that have such levels of lithium naturally occuring in their water supply. Then it becomes a question of whether our bodies require a certain amount of elemental lithium to function at their best, and people may not be getting the appropriate levels. Other comparisons besides fluoride are enriched wheat flour, vitamin D in milk and iodized salt.

    • McC_

      not saying this is a good idea (I'm way over my head on that question) but if I was some kind of doctor of neuro-chemistry-something-something this would have potential for many fascinating studies!

    • http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

      See, everyone? It *is* possible to read first and *then* judge!

      • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

        Sure it's possible. It's just not probable.

      • lgarvin

        Yeah, it's also wise to trust your sense of revulsion when presented with a revolting idea.

        Read a little Clockwork Orange and then read about an idea to "improve" public safety through pharmacology. I can't believe anyone would present this as a serious "idea." It doesn't even deserve the status of a _bad_ idea. It's frighteningly moronic…

        • McC_

          but lithium is a little weird because it's a naturally occuring element rather than a pharmaceutical product, a substance that's in our food and water to a certain extent… anyway, unravelling all of these questions is a little much for me for a thursday afternoon (with another couple of hours before I can follow gottabesaid's advice from up the page)

          • lgarvin

            It's not the element that matters, it's the notion that controlling public behaviour through brain chemistry is even broached as a topic. It's an horrendous idea…

            You could save a lot of money and a lot of lives by castrating violent offenders; should we consider it?
            Oh wait, that's not a fair analogy because we're talking about a preventative measure applied to the entire population rather than just against proven risks. Try as I might I can't even conceive of an appropriate analogy.

          • McC_

            Back in the 90s I studied a bit about the chemical castration program that one/some of the nordic countr(y/ies) have for convicted sex offenders — I think it was Denmark — anyway, the results were pretty compelling.
            Anyway, the question for me (and I don't have the answer) is this so different than iron-enriched flour, vitamin-D enriched milk, iodized salt and a million other such changes? It would take a ton of science to convince me that this is a good idea, but it seems to me to be a good question for science to look into (not for immediate human trials on a mass scale!).

          • lgarvin

            is this so different than iron-enriched flour, vitamin-D enriched milk, iodized salt and a million other such changes?

            Yeah, it's very different in my opinion. None of those changes were intended to alter or control public behaviour, and none of those things is delivered through tapwater. You've got a million choices when it comes to food but very few options for water.

          • Tybalt

            We already control public behaviour through brain chemistry. The government controls the availability of psychoactive mateials quite closely.

            Your inability to conceive of an appropriate analogy is because you are barking up the wrong tree. No one would be harmed by this in any more than a _de minimis_ way.

      • Dot

        Or read, judge, opine and be banned.

    • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

      My initial concern when I read the article was over lithium intoxication. Someone did the math though over at WCI and that doesn't seem to be a problem unless the lithium builds up in the body over time. On that question I couldn't find anything definitive.

  • peter

    It staggers the mind that anyone other than an idiot would consider an idea like this. What could go wrong feeding mind altering molecules to unsuspecting people? Get your collicy baby off of breast milk and hook 'em up with formula mixed with medicated water! Of course for leafs fans having other canadian teams slowed to their level might be helpful.

    • McC_

      I didn't like your post till I got to the part about the Leafs, all's forgiven now!

  • Emily

    Well because that would make sense….at least people would have a choice in the matter!

  • Emily
  • McC_

    because use of psychotropic drugs has been shown to exacerbate existing predilictions for mental illness? (I'm actually relatively pro-legalization, but one of the big potential downsides to that policy is pot's effects on people with mental illness and people who are prone to mental illness)

    • alfanerd

      yeah good point, marijuana is linked with schizophrenia. however, its not like teens dont have access to the drug now. in fact, i suspect that legalization would make it harder for teens to score, and may in fact have a positive effect on mental illness.

      • McC_

        true story, (I think the link is that people who are prone to schizophrenia are more likely to have schizophrenic episodes if they use marijuana, one of those 'counter-indicators') anyway, that would one of the potential upsides. As I said, I usually fall on the legalize-it side, but it's a long ledger of pros and cons before I get to that conclusion.

        • alfanerd

          yes that's my understanding of the link as well. i have a long ledger of pros, not many cons, and invariably my conclusion is strongly pro-legalization. in fact the only con i can think of is the relationship with the US. But I think while Obama is in office, we could negotiate something like with all the $ saved and earned due to legalization (we're talking billions), we could seriously improve our border security.

        • alfanerd

          yes that's my understanding of the link as well. i have a long ledger of pros, not many cons, and invariably my conclusion is strongly pro-legalization. in fact the only con i can think of is the relationship with the US. But I think while Obama is in office, we could negotiate something like with all the $ saved and earned due to legalization (we're talking billions), we could seriously improve our border security.

    • Jan

      Prohibition hasn't done anything to prevent the mentally ill from using it.

      • Emily

        No, in fact they 'self-medicate'.

        And as with everything else, dosage is important.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    This may help offset the side effects of our paper moneys cocaine content.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    I'm reminded of the Philip K. Dick short story in which the protagonist―a minor Party functionary in a future totalitarian dystopia―takes pills he bought from a street vendor, and is horrified when he turns on the TV to watch the Leader's speech.

    The screen remained blank and then, by degrees, an image once more formed and established itself. It was not the Leader. Not the Absolute Benefactor of the People, in point of fact not a human figure at all.

    He faced a dead mechanical construct, made of solid state circuits, of swiveling pseudopodia, lenses and a squawk-box. And the box began, in a droning din, to harangue him.

    Staring fixedly, he thought, What is this? Reality? Hallucination, he thought. The peddler came across some of the psychedelic drugs used during the War of Liberation — he's selling the stuff and I've taken some, taken a whole lot! Making his way unsteadily to the vidphone, he dialed the Secpol station nearest his building. "I wish to report a pusher of hallucinogenic drugs," he said into the receiver.

    Anyway, it turns out later that the drugs he took were really an anti-hallucinogenic, and the powers that be were doping the water supply with hallucinogens for decades. Fun stuff.

    • Fido

      So that explains our present situation. :-)

      • MostlyCivil

        "Faith of our Fathers", if I'm not mistaking. I've just been reading some of the stuff he wrote in mid-breakdown at the end of the 70's. He could have used some lithium, himself…

        • Crit_Reasoning

          That's right – it was "Faith of our Fathers", from 1967. Completely agree that PKD would have benefited from lithium in the 1970s, although he probably would have written very different stories had he tended to his mental health.

          • MostlyCivil

            Well, if it had prevented the writing of "Valis", I would have been all for it.

    • McC_

      cool.

  • lgarvin

    Next up, the economic case for eugenics! Stay tuned.

    • McC_

      fair point. for me the question at hand is one for medicine, not for economics.

      • Jan

        I think it's one for ethics.

        • McC_

          I was thinking the questions are something like:
          (1) How much (if any) elemental lithium do our bodies need for healthy mental function?
          (2) Are we getting sufficient levels of elemental lithium for healthy mental function?
          (3) If not, what are the most effective means of increasing our level of elemental lithium?
          (4) What are the potential side effects of such options
          This would be the point where human "sciences" like economics and ethics would start to join in.
          It's not clear from the blog post that questions 1 and 2 have been satisfactorily answered yet.

      • lgarvin

        Maybe we need to have the Public Utilities take the Hippocratic Oath before they start practising medicine?

        • McC_

          would have helped in Walkerton…. ouch, too soon.

    • E_B_

      MMMMMM. Soylent Green for dinner…

  • tobyornotoby

    What's the drug you take to prevent you from treating humans as if they are economic units to experiment on?

    • McC_

      empathy, I think.

      • tobyornotoby

        Yes, that's it. Apparently there are rarely any negative side effects and I believe it's also free of patent protection, therefore quite affordable.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          I believe lithium is also free of patent protection. You can't patent an element.

  • lgarvin

    I just clicked back through the URL references to the original article which is properly categorized as a Dangerous Idea and soundly rebutted. It's an interesting site.
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/21538

    • Tybalt

      The "rebuttal" consists entirely of q quote from a well-known nut who is fighting against the fluoridation of drinking water. Good luck with those precious bodily fluids, kid.

      The "rebuttal" makes no legal sense, and adding fluoride to drinking water (and maybe even lithium) is no more a violation of the Nuremburg Code than is making or selling iodized salt, or Cheerios.

  • A_logician

    For those already taking lithium as a treatment for bipolar disorder, and carefully controlling their intake to limit organ damage, the addition of lithium to drinking water would pose some serious problems.

  • s_c_f

    This is one of the worst, scariest, most terrible ideas I've ever heard.

  • Jim Bowman

    what if they added lithium to scotch?

From Macleans