Hmm....

On the one hand I'm fairly skeptical. Correlation doesn't show causation and there could be a variety of confounding factors. I thought that the difference between a 'theraputic dose' and a 'lethal dose' was fairly close for lithium - and that as such significant monitoring was required. But that was to treat bi-polar, in particular, I guess... I suppose it might turn out that lower levels has a beneficial cumulative effect on non-bi-polar populations...

I guess there is also pharma interests to consider. I suppose they really do want to emphasize the dangerousness of lithium to treat bi-polar seeing as it is next to impossible to patient a naturally occurring element and all... That might well have resulted in more emphasis on that than needs be... I'm not sure...

I know that flouride has been really controversial... There is good evidence that adding and removing flouride from drinking water has had an impact on cavities in children (flouride seems to prevent them). There is also good evidence that flouride has other effects (such as stunting political protest and dissent, however). Hard to weigh... Would flouride toothpaste be good enough?

I dunno... I don't see why it would be so terribly expensive to experiment with lithium in water... Trouble is that as usual we really want to know about the long term effects and yet people want solutions NOW!!! Which often turn out to be short sighted... Generally speaking... I'm fairly opposed... Did you know that if people donated the money to charity instead of buying drinking water (in places where drinking water is safe to drink) there wouldn't be any people who didn't get enough water?

I can't believe the priorities of the health system. Sigh.