Advertisement

The Transfermium Wars

  • Helge Kragh
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in History of Science and Technology book series (BRIEFSHIST)

Abstract

With the rival discovery claims in the early 1970 of the first transactinide elements, numbers 104 and 105 in the periodic table, the situation with regard to official recognition of new elements became increasingly chaotic. Definite criteria for discovery and naming procedures were needed. As a result, a Transfermium Working Group (TWG) was established in 1985 jointly by IUPAC and IUPAP. The TWG reports of 1991 and 1992, including discovery criteria as well as evaluations of specific discovery claims, were controversial and central parts of what in some quarters became known as the “transfermium wars.” The so-called wars were basically an extended priority dispute which lasted until the late 1990s. The name of element 106, eventually settled to be seaborgium, played an important role in the transfermium warfare. Although the Cold War had officially ended, its shadows were visible in the rivalry between American and Russian scientists.

Keywords

Discovery criteria Priority disputes IUPAC Element names Seaborgium Transfermium working group 

References

  1. Armbruster, P.: On the production of heavy elements by cold fusion. The elements 106 to 109. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 35, 135–194 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armbruster, P., Münzenberg, G.: An experimental paradigm opening up the world of superheavy elements. Eur. Phys. J. H 37, 310–327 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, R.C., et al.: Discovery of the transfermium elements. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 29, 453–530 (1992)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, D.: Battle resumes over who found heavy elements. New Scientist 139, 8–9, 14 August 1993Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M. V.: Advance made in seeking heavy elements. New York Times, 12 October 1993Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M. W.: Element is stripped of its namesake. New York Times, 11 October 1994Google Scholar
  7. Coryell, C.D., Sugarman, N.: The acceptance of new official names for the elements. J. Chem. Educ. 27, 460–461 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diament, H.: Politics and nationalism in the naming of chemical elements. Names: J. Onomast. 39, 203–216 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. Economist.: Today we have naming of parts. The Economist. https://www.astro.com/swisseph/econ4686.htm December 1998
  10. Fennell, R.: History of IUPAC 1919–1987. Blackwell Science, London (1994)Google Scholar
  11. Fernelius, W.C., Loening, K., Adams, R.M.: How are elements named? J. Chem. Educ. 48, 730–731 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flerov, G.N.: Synthesis and search for heavy transuranium elements. Sov. Atom. Energy 28, 390–397 (1970a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flerov, G.N.: Soviet synthesis of element 105. Science 170, 15 (1970b)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flerov, G.N.: Kurchatovium. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/kurchatovium (1979)
  15. Flerov, G.N., et al.: History of the transfermium elements Z = 101, 102, 103. Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 22, 453–483 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. Fontani, M., Costa, M., Orna, M.V.: The Lost Elements: The Periodic Table’s Shadow Side. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  17. Ghiorso, A.: Disputed discovery of element 105. Science 171, 127 (1971)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghiorso, A., et al.: Element 106. Phys. Rev. 33, 1490–1493 (1974)Google Scholar
  19. Ghiorso, A., Seaborg, G.T.: Response to the report of the Transfermium Working Group ‘Discovery of the transfermium elements’. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 31, 233–237 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwood, N.N.: Recent developments concerning the discovery of elements 101-111. Pure Appl. Chem. 69, 179–184 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregorich, K.E., et al.: First confirmation of the discovery of element 106. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1423–1426 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargittai, I.: Candid Science III: More Conversations with Famous Chemists. Imperial College Press, London (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harvey, B.G., et al.: Criteria for discovery of chemical elements. Science 193, 1271–1272 (1976)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, D.C.: the transuranium elements: From neptunium and plutonium to element 112. In: Unpublished Conference Paper. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/017/28017156.pdf (1996)
  25. Hoffman, D.C., Ghiorso, A., Seaborg, G.T.: Transuranium People: The Inside Story. Imperial College Press, London (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holcomb, R.W.: Element 105 synthesized and named hahnium by Berkeley researchers. Science 168, 810 (1970)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huizenga, J.R.: Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY (1992)Google Scholar
  28. Hyde, E.K., Hoffman, D.C., Keller, O.L.: A history and analysis of the discovery of elements 104 and 105. Radiochim. Acta 42, 57–102 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IUPAC: Names and symbols of transfermium elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 66, 2419–2421 (1994)Google Scholar
  30. IUPAC: Names and symbols of transfermium elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 69, 2471–2473 (1997)Google Scholar
  31. IUPAC.: Joint working group to examine the 1991 criteria used to verify the discovery of new elements. https://iupac.org/projects/project-details/?project_nr=2017-014-2-200 (2017)
  32. Karol, P.J.: Transfermium wars. Chem. Eng. News 18, 2–3, 31 October 1994Google Scholar
  33. Karol, P.J.: The heavy elements. In: Ouvray, D.H., King, R.B. (eds.) The Periodic Table: Into the 21st Century, pp. 235–262. Research Studies Press, Baldock, England (2004)Google Scholar
  34. Koppenol, W.H.: Paneth, IUPAC, and the naming of elements. Helv. Chim. Acta 88, 95–99 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lehrman, S.: ’Seaborgium’ fails to win approval. Nature 371, 639 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oganessian, Y.T., Lazarev, Y.A.: Problems involved in the synthesis of new elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 53, 925–947 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paneth, F.A.: The making of the missing chemical elements. Nature 159, 8–10 (1947)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rayner-Canham, G., Zheng, Z.: Naming elements after scientists: an account of a controversy. Found. Chem. 10, 13–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rothstein, L.: The transfermium wars. Bull. At. Sci. 51, 5–6 (1995) (January)Google Scholar
  40. Schädel, M.: Chemistry of the superheavy elements. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140191 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seaborg, G.T.: Terminology of the transuranium elements. Terminology 1, 229–252 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seaborg, G.T.: Transuranium elements: past, present, and future. Acc. Chem. Res. 28, 257–264 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seaborg, G.T., Loveland, W.D.: The Elements Beyond Uranium. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  44. Thoenessen, M.: Reaching the limits of nuclear stability. Rep. Prog. Phys. 67, 1187–1232 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson, S.G., Tsang, C.F.: Superheavy elements. Science 178, 1047–1055 (1972)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. TWG.: Responses on the report ‘discovery of the transfermium elements’. Pure Appl. Chem. 65, 1815–1824 (1993)Google Scholar
  47. Wapstra, A.H.: Criteria that must be satisfied for the discovery of a new chemical element to be recognized. Pure Appl. Chem. 63, 879–886 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, D.H., et al.: Discovery of the transfermium elements. Pure Appl. Chem. 67, 1757–1814 (1993)Google Scholar
  49. Yarris, L.: Naming of element 106 disputed by international committee. http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/seaborgium-dispute.html (1994)
  50. Zvára, I.: Studies of the heaviest elements at Dubna. Dubna preprint, see http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCCLCollectionStore/_Public/06/179/6179997.pdf (1973)

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Niels Bohr ArchiveNiels Bohr InstituteCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations