perioidic table
Stephen Senzer
To: uhc...@nemesis.lonestar.org
lately there has been a lot of dispute over the proper naming of 102-110
i don't believe 111 has been "discovered" (yet). 110 was only recently
discovered and no name has been proposed. some believe there will be
a "region of stability" when we get up above 115 or so, and that many more
elements with longer lifetimes will be discovered in a few years - there
was an article by darleane hoffman r.e. this subject in c&e news in july
or august.
ok names: last year the American Chemical Society (ACS) proposed Seaborgium
at the spring meeting. sg in honor of glenn seaborg. the problem is glenn
is still alive (i talked with him last august at the last acs meeting).
no element has ever been named after a living person and IUPAC, which
is the international union of pure and applied chemistry, decided to
reject the ACS' recommendation. most scientists in this country have
already named 106 Sg and it is on some 1994-made periodic tables. there
are also disputes about the names of other elements. here goes the
current situation:
atomic number proposed by discovery gp iupac symbol
102 nobelium 9swedish) nobelium no
joliotium (russian)
103 lawrencium (american) lawrencium lr
104 rutherfordium (american) dubnium Db
kurchatovium (russian)
105 hahnium (american) joliotium Jl
nielsbohrium (russian)
106 seaborgium (american) rutherfordium Rf
107 Nielsbohrium (germany) bohrium Bh
108 Hassium(germany) hahnium Hn
109 Meitnerium (german) meitnerium Mt
These names and symbols have not yet become IUPAC's final, official
recommendations. There is much to be discussed in 1995!
don't fill in your new periodic table yet.
for more discussion on recent naming events try and get a copy of
chemical and engineering news, dec 5, 1994 pp25-29.
Paul Karol
Sen...@svpal.svp
> at the spring meeting. sg in honor of glenn seaborg. the problem is glenn
> is still alive (i talked with him last august at the last acs meeting).
> no element has ever been named after a living person and IUPAC, which
> is the international union of pure and applied chemistry, decided to
> reject the ACS' recommendation. most scientists in this country have
> already named 106 Sg and it is on some 1994-made periodic tables. there
> are also disputes about the names of other elements. here goes the
> current situation:
>
> atomic number proposed by discovery gp iupac symbol
>
> 102 nobelium 9swedish) nobelium no
> joliotium (russian)
>
> 103 lawrencium (american) lawrencium lr
>
> 104 rutherfordium (american) dubnium Db
> kurchatovium (russian)
>
> 105 hahnium (american) joliotium Jl
> nielsbohrium (russian)
>
> 106 seaborgium (american) rutherfordium Rf
>
> 107 Nielsbohrium (germany) bohrium Bh
>
> 108 Hassium(germany) hahnium Hn
>
> 109 Meitnerium (german) meitnerium Mt
>
> These names and symbols have not yet become IUPAC's final, official
> recommendations. There is much to be discussed in 1995!
>
> don't fill in your new periodic table yet.
DO FILL IN YOUR NEW PERIODIC TABLE!!
The American Chemical Society, through its National Committee on
Nomenclature and subsequently the Society's Board of Directors has
endorsed the names for 104-109 as
rutherfordium
hahnium
seaborgium
nielsbohrium
hassium
meitnerium
These are the names that are being used, will be used and should be used
in the U.S. (They're already on exhibit at the Smithsonian.) Note that
the first three are "American" elements and the last three are "German".
The German discoverers have similarly endorsed the above list. It is
the fervent hope of the U.S. nomenclature community and also nuclear
chemistry community that IUPAC can be convinced of the error of their
pending decision. The IUPAC Executive Council meets in August to
consider the names. Textbook authors and publishers are being notified
of the official U.S. names for these elements before the IUPAC
alternatives propagate, since the latter will not really "fly",
partially because of the outlandish confusion they will create. IUPAC
does not have a flawless record in getting its nomenclature schemes
accepted. Nor is there any regulatory obligation to abide by IUPAC
decisions. In the case of naming these elements, IUPAC did not even
follow its own rules for publicizing and reviewing their new
recommendation.
As far as naming an element (106) after a living person is concerned, I
have several observations to make. First, evidence has been presented
that the discoverers of elements 99 and 100 named those after Einstein
and Fermi while the latter were still living. At that stage, the names
were not official (what ever that means). Second, if no element had
ever been named after a living person before, so what? How much more
succinctly can I phrase that question? "SO WHAT?" Third, and most
unprofoundly, if an international nomenclature watchdog committee was
uncomfortable about the precedent of naming an element after a living
person, why did they not simply state that their decision on the name
"seaborgium" was being tabled indefinitely?
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
(Member of the ACS Committee on Nomenclature,
Member of the IUPAC Commission on Radiochemistry and Nuclear Techniques)