A Letter to Dr. Anna Fels

Dear Dr. Fels,

     Water contamination is a major contributor to the paranoia surrounding our drinking water. From instances where anything from disease-carrying organisms to trash can run off into our rivers, it is safe to say that this paranoia is justified. Nobody likes the idea of drinking something that could be harmful, but what if the contaminant had healing properties?  In this article, you go into detail about why the act of adding lithium to the water supply should be encouraged, stating outright that it will be beneficial in the long run, but you fail to pursue a deeper analysis into the reasons surrounding it.


      You begin your article with a statement concerning another psychotropic element, fluoride. This element is well known for the controversy surrounding it because of how toxic it can be in large doses and that it is being put into drinking water without a majority’s consent and knowledge. You make it clear that the situation surrounding the idea to put fluoride in the water is not the same as this one and for that I thank you. Lithium is a naturally occurring element and hints of it can already be found in groundwater from concentrations ranging from undetectable to .170 milliliters per liter. It doesn't need to be demonized like fluoride was. It doesn't need to be demonized like fluoride was, especially since studies have been done and the majority of them affirm that even trace amounts can promote brain health and decrease suicide rates considerably.


      Compared to more scientific journals concerning this subject your article is more casual in its approach to its readers.  You do an excellent job setting up your line of reasoning. However, after the introduction however, the outline becomes more scattered. Mentions of various studies are touched upon briefly in-between even briefer speeches concerning your real life encounters with the subject matter. Even the studies that are talked about at great length are done vaguely, with no links to confirm whether these studies actually exist and those that do can be hard to find. Maybe you could have been more focused? Or made the article more about both the pros and cons?


      While lithium’s psychological connections to depression are one of its main draws, there are other factors that should have been brought up more. A more balanced response would point out that, “exposure to lithium via drinking water…may affect thyroid function, consistent with known side effects of medical treatment with lithium” (Broberg et al, 827). These side effects include hypothyroidism and goiter. In an opposing viewpoint, “trace lithium levels may have cognitive benefits for dementia prevention” (Sivan et al, 48). These are two opposing issues that could have benefited from being pit against each other, but they aren’t the only things that could have been mentioned.

        Instead of balancing positive and negative you wax lyrical about its benefits and don't bring up any negative points regarding this topic. The one report you bring up that you do not agree with is negated just as quickly as it’s brought up and other questions about long term affects and impact on society that could be answered are left unanswered in the last paragraph, stating that they cannot be answered because, “[Scientists]don’t know because the research hasn’t been done.” Never mind the fact that a study done in 2011 briefly discussed the fact that it might have been, “the first study investigating the potential health impact of long-term lithium exposure from drinking water…on the thyroid” (Broberg et al, 830) and your own research into a study done in 1990 concerning lithium levels in the water of 27 Texas counties shows that this subject has been researched even if it is not as well-known. This is not even mentioning the other studies you allude to constantly.

     While the topic is interesting enough and treated with respect and utmost importance, it is still a very biased viewpoint that could have been more effective if it flowed a little better and covered more than just the bare minimum of what this element is capable of. On a more positive note, because of its approachableness, this article could be used as a gateway. Interested readers will seek out more information about this topic and fill in the blanks regarding everything that went unmentioned, all the while bringing lithium and water contamination in general to the forefront of readers’ minds. It could be more effective, but it blatantly gets its message across. Thanks for a good read!

Link to Next Article Being Analyzed

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/should-we-all-take-a-bit-of-lithium.html?_r=0

Welcome!

Welcome readers! If you're new here then let me give you a brief introduction! We are the Jefferson Gals! Here on this blog, we analyze articles pertaining to issues running rampant in our world and see how "accurate" they are. Seems a little mean. but better to call them out than let misinformation spread.