hello,

so I want to know if this version still accurate since it was made in 1970? and can you tell me why.

thank you

Looks about right (without measuring everyone and checking).

 

Note that this is abundance on on Earth. (Not in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe as a whole.)

 

 

and can you tell me why.

 

Why what?

I think in its own terms it is unlikely to be wrong. But I would prefer it if it were more specific - it clearly is not abundance on astronomical scales where H is about 70% by mass and 90% by atom count, nor the earth itself which is about 30%iron and 30% oxygen by mass.

It's an interesting approximation, but, for example there is nothing like as much Pa as U or Th.

Po and At are also vastly over-represented.

 

What I find interesting is that they did this in 1970.

The idea of using distorted maps has come into vogue recently because it's easy to get a computer to do it for you.

Things like this

http://www.worldmapper.org/animations/internet_users_animation.html

it must have been very hard work doing it by hand all those years ago.

It can't be Earth's composition neither. But maybe Eart's crust, or the top of the crust, plus the atmosphere, the Ocean and all the carbonates in the soil. What does the text say?

http://www.eoht.info/page/William+Sheehan

 

"each square based on the element's relative abundance on the Earth's surface"

 

https://magazine.scu.edu/summer2008/memoriam.cfm