| Revision as of 23:39, 31 July 2002 editJeronimo (talk | contribs)8,556 editsm Niels Bohr -> nielsbohrium, right?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 31 July 2002 edit undoWojPob (talk | contribs)2,524 editsm linked IUPACNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :105 - nielsbohrium | :105 - nielsbohrium | ||
| In 1994, the IUPAC proposed the following names | In 1994, the ] proposed the following names | ||
| :104 - dubnium | :104 - dubnium | ||
| :105 - joliotiumm | :105 - joliotiumm | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 31 July 2002
The names for the chemical elements 104 to 108 have been the subject of a major controversy starting in the 1960s which was only finally resolved in 1997. At issue was the convention that elements are named by their discoverers which led to controversy when multiple groups claimed discovery simulatenously. The three groups which conflicted over elemental naming were an American group in Berkeley, a Russian group at Dubna, and a German group.
The names preferred by the Americans were
- 104 - rutherfordium
- 105 - hahnium
- 106 - seaborgium
The names preferred by the Russians were
- 104 - kurchatovium
- 105 - nielsbohrium
In 1994, the IUPAC proposed the following names
- 104 - dubnium
- 105 - joliotiumm
- 106 - rutherfordium
- 107 - bohrium
- 108 - hahnium
- 109 - meitnerium
This was objected to by the American Chemical Society.
Finally in 1997, the following names were agreed to