Talk:Chemical makeup of the human body

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this redirect, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine

Factual Dispute

Magnesium Appears twice in the pecentages --WildKard84 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You might be looking at "Manganese". --Khaydarian 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did. It's been fixed. tag removed --WildKard84 23:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Discussion

This is an odd article. Why are some chemicals given as compounds, and others as elements? Why aren't the trace elements listed (as without them, we die)? Why are some "chemicals" listed as volumes and others as weights? Surely weight should be listed throughout, at the very least. I'd prefer a numerical breakdown in terms of the number of atoms. Just some thoughts. Sliggy 23:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any lists by the number of atoms, but as of my reply the list does contain trace elements. Fatalserpent 23:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this list comes from the list quoted at the beginning of the anime series Fullmetal Alchemist. See this episode summary: [1]. I don't know how necessary this list is, anyway, given that there's already a decent list over at Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Human_body, but without the table. - Gemtiger 15:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is indeed cited in Fullmetal Alchemist, however it is a complete list cited in scientific and referene publications. Fatalserpent 23:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one was here first, this ones a more complete listing of the human body Shadowbeast 03:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no references. How do we know it's accurate? And if someone cites a cartoon as the source I'll immediately put this up for a RFD vote. :) --ElKevbo 05:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. The only place this really belongs is in the FMA article or something. - Gemtiger 08:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted above, the cartoon is not neccesarily the source, just another thing that cites it... Not all fiction is completely made up ;) Fatalserpent 23:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they gave the percents in the cartoon... Not sure I've only seen that episode (with my own eyes which I never trust) once, here I dug up the book/arthur/page that contains it, you guys can put it in there if you please: Pocket Ref. (Third Edition) Thomas J. GLover, Pg. 324. I belive that's sufficient for now but I'll get the copyright information if neccisary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowbeast (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case then I suggest the table be merged into Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Human_body, and the cartoon stuff deleted, since it's not a reliable source for information like this. - Gemtiger 05:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would could you move it there? There isn't anything from a cartoon and I have the source up above I'm just not very good at merging things so I can't really do it myself (I'm terrible at making things look nice.)

Inclusion in Category:Human Anatomy?

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

silicon?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Percentage by what?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of every 200 atoms in your body 126 hydrogen 51 are oxygen 19 are carbon 3 are nitrogen 1 varies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.102.26 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-metric conversions?

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)[reply]

accuracy of percentages

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)[reply]

Tables of differing lengths

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)[reply]