Ask A Scientist Chemistry Archive

Question:
Why are we returning back to the old way in referring in naming an
element?  For a period of time, element 106 was called Unnilhexium.
Recently, it was changed in honor of Dr. Seaborg.  Element 106
is now called Seaborgium, Sg.  I thought all elements from 104 and
up were named by thier number according to the International Union
of Applied Science?
 gary f dicioccio

Answer 1:
Good question, I don't know.
I have heard that the IUPAC suggestions for naming of
new elements are not universally accepted.
 
Personally I think that the IUPAC suggestions are stupid!
I'm sorry, but naming elements with such cold, dull names like
unnilhexium takes all of the poetry out of chemistry
as far as I'm concerned. Carried to this extreme, we should
name all the elements this way; hydrogen I guess would be something
idiotic like "unium."
 
We need standardization of nomenclature, don't get me wrong.
But I think IUPAC copped out when they decided that the tradition
of an element's discoverer having the privilege of naming it
was no longer expedient (due to multiple claims of discovery of
certain elements, I believe).
 
Count this as one vote for Seaborgium!!
ranting,
topper
 
Answer 2:
The IUPAC nomenclature system is meant to give a name to
an element which has been discovered by a team of scientists
somewhere and which is not credited to any one individual;
as all explorers are wont to do, discoverers are apt to
name their discovery after either themselves or their
supporters...  I might postulate that, since the elements
past Plutonium on the periodic table are all man-made, that
the element 108 was created first, and therefore the
preceding five elements were postulated to exist, though had
not actually been measured under laboratory conditions.
Therefore, since they had not been discovered, technically,
they could not be named after a discoverer.. now that
Seaborg discovered element 106, they could name it after him.
This is all supposition, of course, but seems the most likely
explanation...
 
-- WORD!!
 
Answer 3:
 My understanding is that the discovery of several
of the elements with atomic numbers above 105 is disputed...
with several independent groups claiming priority, and
the right to name the elements. IUPAC's response to the
controversy was to simply establish a convention which
took away the discovers' right to name the elements...
thus "ending" the controversy.
 
But again, I think that there's no poetry at all in that decision.
 
topper

Answer 4:
There is a fascinating news article on this subject
in the October 10 1994 issue of CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS.
A few quotes..."In a surprise move, the [IUPAC] has revealed
much sooner than expected its recommendations for naming
elements 101 to 109. And some of its choices are rekindling
the long-running controversy surrounding discovery and
naming of these elements...."
IUPAC's current recommendations are:
101 Mendelevium, Md : 102 Nobelium, No
103 Lawrencium, Lr  : 104 Dubnium, Db
105 Joliotium, Jl   : 106 Rutherfordium, Rf
107 Bohrium, Bh     : 108 Hahnium, Hn         :  109 Meitnerium, Mt
 
This amounts to: (1) accepting the "status quo" for elements
101-103, (2) calling 104 Dubnium instead of the widely used
Rutherfordium [which I personally consider to be "dubious," haha]
(and now 106 is to be called Rutherfordium), (3) calling 105 Joliotium
instead of the widely used Hahnium (now element 108 is to be called
Hahnium), and (4) among other insults, refusing to name 106 after
Seaborg. IUPAC says that its decision not to name 106 Seaborgium is
due to its policy of only naming elements after dead people.
Sorry Glen. I guess you have to be dead before you get your own element,
even if you are responsible for mapping out the transactinide series.
topper