| Element Naming Controversy |
Article Index for Element |
Website Links For Element |
Information AboutElement Naming Controversy |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT ELEMENT NAMING CONTROVERSY | |
| chemical elements | |
| chemical nomenclature | |
| history of chemistry | |
| history of physics | |
| discovery and invention controversies | |
| naming controversies | |
| SHOPPER'S DELIGHT | |
|
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 handing out autographed periodic tables 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 not to 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 rutherfordium and hahnium for 104 and 105, 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 in 1999 Glenn T. Seaborg died, still disputing the name change for #105 and adamant about it remaining known as ''hahnium''. His reason concerning Dubna in Russia was that he believed that they had made a false claim about discovering the element for which they had been credited. 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. Some people in the Berkeley group and some others still refer to it as hahnium. SEE ALSO |