| Revision as of 19:11, 26 March 2004 edit128.148.60.58 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 26 March 2004 edit undo128.148.60.58 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| that the right of the American group to propose the name for element 106 was not in question and | that the right of the American group to propose the name for element 106 was not in question and | ||
| that group should have the right to name the element whatever it wanted | that group should have the right to name the element whatever it wanted | ||
| to. Indeed, ] decided that the credit for the discovery of element 106 should be shared between |
to. Indeed, ] decided that the credit for the discovery of element 106 should be shared between Berkeley and Dubna but the Dubna group had not come forward with a name. In addition, given that many American books had already used 104 and | ||
| 105 for rutherfordium and hahnium, the ACS objected to those names being | 105 for rutherfordium and hahnium, the ACS objected to those names being | ||
| used for other elements. | used for other elements. | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 26 March 2004
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 simultaneously.
The three groups which conflicted over elemental naming were an American group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a Russian group at Dubna, and a German group at Darmstadt.
The names preferred by the Americans were
- 104 - rutherfordium
- 105 - hahnium
- 106 - seaborgium
The names preferred by the Russians were
- 104 - kurchatovium
- 105 - nielsbohrium
Element 104 was named after Igor Kurchatov who was father of the Russian atomic bomb, and this was one reason the name was objectionable to the Americans. The American name to 106 was objectionable to some because Glenn T. Seaborg was still alive and hence his name could not be used for an element in accordance with the IUPAC rules.
In 1994, the IUPAC proposed the following names
- 104 - dubnium
- 105 - joliotium
- 106 - rutherfordium
- 107 - bohrium
- 108 - hahnium
- 109 - meitnerium
This attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the name for 104 with a name after the Dubna research center, and to not name 106 after Seaborg.
This was objected to by the American Chemical Society on the grounds that the right of the American group to propose the name for element 106 was not in question and that group should have the right to name the element whatever it wanted to. Indeed, IUPAC decided that the credit for the discovery of element 106 should be shared between Berkeley and Dubna but the Dubna group had not come forward with a name. In addition, given that many American books had already used 104 and 105 for rutherfordium and hahnium, the ACS objected to those names being used for other elements.
Finally in 1997, the following names were agreed to
- 104 - rutherfordium
- 105 - dubnium
- 106 - seaborgium
- 107 - bohrium
- 108 - hassium
- 109 - meitnerium
But Glenn T. Seaborg went to his grave disputing the name change for #105 and was adamant about it remaining known as hahnium. His reason concerning Dubna in Russia was that he believed that they made a false claim on an element that they got credit for. When the Dubna group finally did release some additional data on the experiment, Seaborg claimed that it was a misreading of the decay pattern of their product. Even then, the Dubna group still refused to remove their claim. The group at Berkeley labs and some others still refer to it as hahnium.