I must admit, I railed against adding Flouride for many years, mostly from a liberty / choice perspective, before finally accepting almost a century of scientific evidence and becoming a supporter. I need to know more about the science, both positive and negative effects, before doing the same here, but it is a nifty precendent.
As with fluoride, I wouldn't want my community to be the first to test it - perhaps if I can convince my neighbours to support a local nuclear power plant we would be spared being guinea pigs on the lithium issue.
One thing that's always been like a junk-science beacon for me in regards to water fluoridation is the decree that the ppm of fluoride in water varies depending on whether you're in a hot climate or a cold climate because "people who live in warm climates tend to drink more water".
That and systemic reviews such as the York review (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf) which basically states there has been very little high-quality studies done on the effects of water fluoridation.
Admittedly that systemic review was released in 2000, and unfortunately for conspiracy theorists the York review concluded there may be a slight benefit and at worst a slight disbenefit to water fluoridation, but in their executive summary they did say:
"Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken"
That's almost half a century since we've been touting the 'scientifically proven' benefits of water fluoridation, which I just find stunning.
So unlike yourself I'm very unimpressed with the scientific evidence, and have come to the conclusion that a half-baked health policy was implemented in an age of questionable scientific rigour.
Human and establishment tendency to refuse to admit fault or error has guaranteed this rather flaky practice continues in many parts of the west today.
I wouldn't want my community to be the first to test it
At the levels they are talking about, it seems like there are communities who for decades or longer have been "testing" drinking water with the proposed levels of lithium.
Of course, that's assuming that the deliberately introduced lithium is in the same form, with the same chemical availability. I would hope that would be a requirement if anyone actually decided to try and do this.
True. I know we had issues where I am (Brisbane, Australia) when fluoride was introduced. There was a lot of trial and error in ensuring the right amount made it into the water supply (not too little or too much), although the errors made (that we found out about at least) were all well within 'safe' levels.
As with fluoride, I wouldn't want my community to be the first to test it - perhaps if I can convince my neighbours to support a local nuclear power plant we would be spared being guinea pigs on the lithium issue.