Talk:Chemical makeup of the human body

message: Magnesium Appears twice in the pecentages --WildKard84 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  You might be looking at "Manganese". --Khaydarian 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did. It's been fixed. tag removed --WildKard84 23:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Dispute 

message: I'm working on cleaning up the list of anatomy (removing things like "sensuality", "sensual play", "male", " Steatopygia", which is a genetic trait, etc.)
I'm wondering if this should go on the page or not. It's not an anatomical part...perhaps there's a better location for it on the medical portal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kludger (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just spontaneously added that category myself and only now find that there's been previous discussion so I guess that counts as an independent vote for this being a reasonable category (or at least the best category for it that I could find within the "human" tree). Bryan Derksen 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in Category:Human Anatomy? 

message: No biomolecules containing silicon exist. Are we talking inplants here? If the only source is a cartoon I suggest deletion. V8rik 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the book that's used as a reference (The Elements) and it says that there are about 2 mg of silicon in a 70 kg human, but that it has no known biological role. The table has the wrong number. It is certainly plausible to have silicon in the body even if there are no biomolecules containing it; some might be as very slightly soluble inorganic compounds, or as insoluble dirt that one eats every day. ;-) --Itub 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  silicon? 

message: I don't have a copy of reference 1, but I'm guessing this is a percentage by weight (as there are several times more hydrogen atoms than oxygen in the human body, but since it's atomic weight is so low compared to oxygen the oxygen percent is much higher).  Wouldn't percentages by mole be more appropriate?  In chemistry, comparisons by mole are much more common and, in my opinion, are more practical in comparisons such as this.  I suggest that the percentage column be labeled to show what the percentage is measuring, and I also suggest adding a column for mole percents.  [This page] lists some more information on this.  I could include it, but since this would reflect a large change to the page I thought I'd post my thoughts here first.  -- GlowingApple 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience is that when chemists talk about percentages without saying by what, it's nearly always percentage by mass, except when talking about gaseous mixtures. I wouldn't say by mole is absolutely more appropriate, but that both lists should be included, just like in the website you referred to. --Itub 07:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage by what? 

message: Could someone possibly add non-metric conversions for those who use pounds?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionriver (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-metric conversions? 

message: The numbers in the table are not consistant. either some of the percentages, or some of the masses are more than a little bit wrong.
atom    	listed% 	listed_mass	mass as percent of 70kg
Oxygen  	65%     	43         	61%
Carbon  	18      	16         	22.8%
Hydrogen	10      	7          	Correct
Nitrogen	3       	1.8        	2.6%
Calcium 	1.5     	1.0        	1.4 (close, but no cigar)
Barium  	0.000031	0.000022   	Correct
Tin     	0.000024	0.000020   	0.000029%
Iodine  	0.000016	0.000020   	0.000029%
Titanium	0.000013	0.000020   	0.000029%
Boron   	0.000069	0.000018   	
Those 3 elements with a percent of .00002, but different mass cannot be right- most rows of the table are wrong. (i don't have any data available to say which is the correct one though)
Andrew Hill 130.102.0.171 (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy of percentages 

message: Why are the two tables of differing lengths?  Is it because the table on the right (percent of atoms) approaches zero?  This should really be pointed out somewhere in the article. Dismas|(talk) 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of differing lengths