Element naming controversy 

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.

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.

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 discovery of 106 by an American group was not in question and that group should have the right to name the element whatever it wanted to. 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 they made a false claim on an element that they got credit. When the Dubna group finally did release some data on the experiment, Seaborg proved 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 others still refer to it as hahnium.

See also: Systematic element name

bridge.html">bridge.html">bridge of boats on the 18th of July, 1591 and proceeded to Arnhem. weather, over nearly impassable roads, was full of courage and On the 20th he was at Arnhem. On the 22nd his bridge of boats was made, entrenched himself with his six thousand foot and fourteen hundred horse dyke, bog, wold, and quagmire, had been successfully traversed, and reached the Batavian island, Maurice stood confronting that famous at fort.html">Fort Knodsenburg, ordered an assault, expecting that so trifling a To his surprise they were so warmly received that two hundred of the repulsed. And now Maurice had appeared upon the scene, determined to relieve a out a small but picked force of cavalry.html">cavalry to reconnoitre the enemy.html">enemy. They the camp before Knodsenburg, including Alexander's own company of lancers a little distance, hotly pursued by the royalists, until, making a sudden cavalry and a thousand musketeers, who fell upon the foe from all in person, assisted by Sir Francis Vere. Sixty of the Spaniards and Captain Nicelli, taken, while the rest of the party sought safety in picked veterans of Alexander Farnese had thus been utterly routed before themselves and their leader. Parma was too experienced a campaigner, and had too quick an eye, not to Waal, without a bridge; between himself and his supplies. He had not as he had thus displayed, and his first business now was to extricate hesitation, he did his best to amuse the enemy in front of the fort, and under cover of which he succeeded next day in transporting in ferry-boats loss, and with his usual skill. .

 On wordlookup.net  

All is still licensed under the GNU FDL.
It uses material from the wikipedia.