<==--- Back to John's home page

<==--- Back to Periodic Table of Elements


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:28:08 -0400
From: "John W. Jost" <IUPAC@interpath.com>
Reply-To: IUPAC@interpath.com
Organization: IUPAC
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: johnca@cgl.org
Subject: Names of Transfermium Elements 101-109
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

The following Press Release may be of interst to you.

John W. Jost
Executive Director
IUPAC


August 30, 1997


For Immediate Release

IUPAC Adopts Final Recommendations for Names of Transfermium Elements

The Council of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC) today approved final recommendations for names of elements
101-109. By a vote of 64 to 5 (with 12 abstentions) delegates from
IUPAC's 40 member countries accepted the report of its Committee on
Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC), thus ending a three-year
controversy over the names of these short-lived, artificially produced
elements.

The names and symbols recommended by IUPAC are as follows:

Element Name Symbol
101 Mendelevium Md
102 Nobelium No
103 Lawrencium Lr
104 Rutherfordium Rf
105 Dubnium Db
106 Seaborgium Sg
107 Bohrium Bh
108 Hassium Hs
109 Meitnerium Mt

The Commission's report recommended that elements 101, mendelevium; 102,
nobelium; and 103, lawrencium should retain their commonly accepted
names although it is clear that the original claim of discovery of
nobelium is in error. The priorities for the discovery of elements 104
and 105 are disputed. CNIC accepted the name proposed for 104 by the
Berkeley group, rutherfordium, and recommended that element 105 should
be called dubnium in honor of the Dubna laboratory, where important
contributions to the creation of transfermium elements have originated.
Element 106 was uncontested as a discovery, and the name seaborgium (Sg)
was accepted. Elements 107, 108 and 109 are also uncontested
discoveries and CNIC accepted the proposals of the discoverers in the
Darmstadt group, except for bohrium, rather than nielsbohrium for 107,
after consultation with Danish authorities.

The final recommendations are based partly on suggestions received
during the official five-month comment period called for in IUPAC's
Bylaws. Comments came from individual chemists worldwide and from the
40 National Adhering Organizations that comprise IUPAC. The new names
replace the provisional recommendations initially proposed by CNIC in
August 1994.
The naming of the transfermium elements has been controversial, partly
because of disagreements on priority for discovery of several elements.
According to Alan Sargeson, Chairman of CNIC, the Commission accepted
the conclusions on discovery reached by the Transfermium Working Group
(TWG) in 1993. The TWG was formed jointly by IUPAC and the
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics in 1986 to establish
criteria that must be satisfied for the discovery of a new chemical
element to be recognized and to evaluate competing claims. In selecting
names, CNIC gave great weight to proposals by discoverers of the
elements but considered other factors as well.

IUPAC's recommendations in a wide range of chemistry carry no legal
force but are normally viewed as authoritative throughout the world.
IUPAC President Albert Fischli pointed out that the process of proposing
provisional recommendations, soliciting comments from the chemistry
community and making revisions where indicated has worked well.
"Unfortunately, he said, "with conflicting claims and preferences, it
has not been possible to devise names that are completely satisfying to
all the laboratories involved in these discoveries. I believe that the
final recommendations come close to achieving our goal and hope they
will be used worldwide."



Further information:

Dr. John W. Jost
Executive Director, IUPAC
Telephone: +1 919 485 8700
Fax: +1 919 485 8706
E-mail: secretariat@iupac.org