While reading the 9th Annual Year in Ideas by the New York Times, I came across a story indicating that neuropsychiatrist Takeshi Terao would like to add lithium to the water supply in order to curb “mood swings” and “potentially offer an easy, cheap and substantial strategy for worldwide suicide prevention”, which left me with no recourse other then to say “wtf.”
I don’t want to preach here, so I’ll just leave you with a few thoughts:
- Lithium is used to treat bi-polar disorder, a medical condition estimated to affect only 3-4% of the world’s population.
- Lithium is known to be toxic, affect kidney function and cause significant weight gain through increases in appetite and thirst (known as “polydypsia,” potentially causing nephrogenic diabetes insipidus), and reduces the activity of thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism).
- Lithium is associated with all of the following side effects: severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); blurred vision; confusion; diarrhea; drowsiness; fainting; giddiness; inability to control the bladder or bowels; increased or decreased urination; involuntary twitching or muscle movements; loss of consciousness; loss of coordination; muscle weakness; persistent headache; persistent or severe nausea; ringing in the ears; seizures; slow or irregular heartbeat; slurred speech; swelling of the ankles or wrists; unsteadiness; vision changes; vomiting.
- What does it mean for your medical and personal rights when you are forced to take a mind-altering substance?
posted by: Harold Johns III
Tags: culture, enviroment, opinion, science
May 6th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I realize this is an old news, but the original research actually said nothing about adding lithium to our water supply. All our water has some amount of lithium. It was an investigative & observational study on the existing lithium levels in certain municipalities in relation to suicide rates, and the researchers conclude the study by saying more studies are required [to even validate the correlation].
Clay Risen carefully chose sound bites to make it sound very crazy, but there was a similar study done in Texas in the 90s, which found similar results. A journalist could have asked Dr. Terao, “So what do you think of adding some to the water supply?” and he could have said “potentially, but more studies are needed,” (<- The latter part is what he says in the paper) but NY Times conveniently omits the 2nd part… No mention of any future policy-making in the study, either.
Let's not dance to the type of journalism which aims for fear and excitement. Just because they're big, doesn't mean they're right.