▲ 53 ▼ How do I verbally say 2.1 ng/kg (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by andrewta@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments I know the ng means nanogram But I’m curious how would I say the above line of 2.1 ng/kg For context I got it from this paragraph a lethal dose of 1.3–2.1 ng/kg in humans Would it be 2.1 nanogram per kilogram? Also if I wanted to write that as a decimal number how would i write that?
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children) So are they saying nanograms of the stuff per kilograms of the human? In other words are they saying it's a ratio compared to the weight of the person? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is correct. The ratio is nanograms of substance to kilograms of bodyweight permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 5 points 2 years ago Thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, personally I would say that it's per kg bodyweight. But I would also do my darndest to try write it, since "ng/kg" is kind of just nonsense. It makes it look like you could divide the grams out of that to get a fixed ratio, which is not correct at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) But it is a fixed ratio. If it was in pounds, metric tons, moles or atomic mass units... It doesn't change the ratio, the actual number. Would it be acceptable to drop the unit all together? "Lethal dose is 0.000000012 : 1 (substance : bodyweight)" (I made up the number). I'm not sure if there is a better way of writing the ratio. Could a fraction be more applicable? "lethal dose is 1/600000 of bodyweight" I'm sure it's written as ng/kg to show the base units are the same, and the rest is just "fiddling" scientific notation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) moles would not work, as they are no mass unit. 1 mol of Botox does not have the same weight as 1 mol of human (If that is defined at all, as organisms are no pure substances). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Ah, yes good point permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Well, what I meant with that, is that it's semantically important that it's ng of the substance per kg bodyweight. If it was ng of the substance per kg of the substance, then in proper mathematical physics, the unit would disappear completely. So, for example: 42000000000 ng of the substance / kg of the substance Is equivalent to: 42000000000 * 0.000000001 * kg of the substance / kg of the substance Which means in the end, you just have: 42 As my physics teacher would often say: Is that 42 potatoes or sausages or what is it? A number without a unit is just devoid of meaning... permalink fedilink source parent [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 2 years ago Thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah - the dose is the poison (if you drink enough water it becomes toxic), so if you are talking precisely you need to describe the concentration of a substance in which it is likely lethal to a person, and that's typically expressed as mass of a substance per mass of bodyweight. A lot of the time you will also see this expressed as an "LD50" value; the dose at which you'd expect 50% of people to die. This accounts for the fact that people's metabolisms vary quite widely. ~1ng/kg ~= 0.08ug for a typical (~80kg) person, which is a very tiny amount - whatever you are talking about is incredibly toxic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) A quick Google of the numbers says OP is likely talking about botulism so I guess they perhaps have been reading about Botox permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Close was talking about Clostridium botulinum Botulinium permalink fedilink source parent [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago Thank you Botulinum permalink fedilink source parent [–] Raffster@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago LD50 is per kg of rat by weight permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) That is correct. The ratio is nanograms of substance to kilograms of bodyweight permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 5 points 2 years ago Thank you permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, personally I would say that it's per kg bodyweight. But I would also do my darndest to try write it, since "ng/kg" is kind of just nonsense. It makes it look like you could divide the grams out of that to get a fixed ratio, which is not correct at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) But it is a fixed ratio. If it was in pounds, metric tons, moles or atomic mass units... It doesn't change the ratio, the actual number. Would it be acceptable to drop the unit all together? "Lethal dose is 0.000000012 : 1 (substance : bodyweight)" (I made up the number). I'm not sure if there is a better way of writing the ratio. Could a fraction be more applicable? "lethal dose is 1/600000 of bodyweight" I'm sure it's written as ng/kg to show the base units are the same, and the rest is just "fiddling" scientific notation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) moles would not work, as they are no mass unit. 1 mol of Botox does not have the same weight as 1 mol of human (If that is defined at all, as organisms are no pure substances). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Ah, yes good point permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Well, what I meant with that, is that it's semantically important that it's ng of the substance per kg bodyweight. If it was ng of the substance per kg of the substance, then in proper mathematical physics, the unit would disappear completely. So, for example: 42000000000 ng of the substance / kg of the substance Is equivalent to: 42000000000 * 0.000000001 * kg of the substance / kg of the substance Which means in the end, you just have: 42 As my physics teacher would often say: Is that 42 potatoes or sausages or what is it? A number without a unit is just devoid of meaning... permalink fedilink source parent [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 2 years ago Thank you permalink fedilink source parent
[–] towerful@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) But it is a fixed ratio. If it was in pounds, metric tons, moles or atomic mass units... It doesn't change the ratio, the actual number. Would it be acceptable to drop the unit all together? "Lethal dose is 0.000000012 : 1 (substance : bodyweight)" (I made up the number). I'm not sure if there is a better way of writing the ratio. Could a fraction be more applicable? "lethal dose is 1/600000 of bodyweight" I'm sure it's written as ng/kg to show the base units are the same, and the rest is just "fiddling" scientific notation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) moles would not work, as they are no mass unit. 1 mol of Botox does not have the same weight as 1 mol of human (If that is defined at all, as organisms are no pure substances). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Ah, yes good point permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Well, what I meant with that, is that it's semantically important that it's ng of the substance per kg bodyweight. If it was ng of the substance per kg of the substance, then in proper mathematical physics, the unit would disappear completely. So, for example: 42000000000 ng of the substance / kg of the substance Is equivalent to: 42000000000 * 0.000000001 * kg of the substance / kg of the substance Which means in the end, you just have: 42 As my physics teacher would often say: Is that 42 potatoes or sausages or what is it? A number without a unit is just devoid of meaning... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) moles would not work, as they are no mass unit. 1 mol of Botox does not have the same weight as 1 mol of human (If that is defined at all, as organisms are no pure substances). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Ah, yes good point permalink fedilink source parent
[–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago Ah, yes good point permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Well, what I meant with that, is that it's semantically important that it's ng of the substance per kg bodyweight. If it was ng of the substance per kg of the substance, then in proper mathematical physics, the unit would disappear completely. So, for example: 42000000000 ng of the substance / kg of the substance Is equivalent to: 42000000000 * 0.000000001 * kg of the substance / kg of the substance Which means in the end, you just have: 42 As my physics teacher would often say: Is that 42 potatoes or sausages or what is it? A number without a unit is just devoid of meaning... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah - the dose is the poison (if you drink enough water it becomes toxic), so if you are talking precisely you need to describe the concentration of a substance in which it is likely lethal to a person, and that's typically expressed as mass of a substance per mass of bodyweight. A lot of the time you will also see this expressed as an "LD50" value; the dose at which you'd expect 50% of people to die. This accounts for the fact that people's metabolisms vary quite widely. ~1ng/kg ~= 0.08ug for a typical (~80kg) person, which is a very tiny amount - whatever you are talking about is incredibly toxic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) A quick Google of the numbers says OP is likely talking about botulism so I guess they perhaps have been reading about Botox permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Close was talking about Clostridium botulinum Botulinium permalink fedilink source parent [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago Thank you Botulinum permalink fedilink source parent [–] Raffster@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago LD50 is per kg of rat by weight permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) A quick Google of the numbers says OP is likely talking about botulism so I guess they perhaps have been reading about Botox permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Close was talking about Clostridium botulinum Botulinium permalink fedilink source parent
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 years ago Close was talking about Clostridium botulinum Botulinium permalink fedilink source parent
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 years ago Thank you Botulinum permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raffster@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago LD50 is per kg of rat by weight permalink fedilink source parent