I'm confused. (It easily happens). How does adding an iron (Fe) object to a cooking pot increase intake of iron ions (Fe 2+). Note that I am saying Fe(2+) intak

I'm confused. (It easily happens). How does adding an iron (Fe) object to a cooking pot increase intake of iron ions (Fe 2+). Note that I am saying Fe(2+) intake. As I understand it, haemoglobin has an Fe(2+) ion trapped in it's structure. This is required for the uptake of oxygen molecules (O2) from the lungs, carrying it in the blood stream and releasing it at sites where there is an oxygen deficit. This is a long way of saying that Fe (2+) is utilised by the body, not Fe. If this is unclear, think in terms of sodium. We use sodium ions (Na+) not sodium atoms (Na). We put NaCl on our food, not Na. Na is very reactive and would react violently with our moist skin. We know that once it loses its electron to chlorine, a similarly highly reactive element, and becomes Na+ (in combination with Cl-) it is in an unreactive form and is used by the body for propagation of impulses along nerves. Back to Fe (2+). I guess that talking about Fe is just an imprecise way of talking about our need for Fe2+. The question then in my mind is "How does the Fe added to the cooking pot become Fe(2+)?" Does it just become oxidised to iron oxide (FeO,Fe2O3, Fe3O4?). I am trying to think what would a soluble form of Fe2+. Wikipedia lists these as insoluble. Perhaps salt is required in the cooking pot and iron chloride Fe2+ Cl2- is formed. But I cannot see Fe winning in a charity tustle with sodium for the donation of it's electrons to chlorine. Maybe, the formation of iron oxides are an interim step. Who knows?