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 at Darmstadt.
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