Talk:Transuranium element
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this correct?:
"All of the elements with higher atomic numbers, however, have been first discovered artificially, and other than plutonium and neptunium, none occur naturally on earth. They are all radioactive, with a half-life much shorter than the age of the Earth, so any atoms of these elements, if they ever were present at the earth's formation, have long since decayed."
Surely this is wrong? For example, if an element has a half life which is a quarter of the age of the earth, one would expect a sixteenth of the original number of atoms to be currently present. I think this needs rewording. [ManInStone]
Would this need some discussion on the speculative "Island of Stability" of transuranic elements? Even if this was thoroughly discredited it'd be nice for the reader to find out that this was so (I have no clue). -- MartijnFaassen
The assertion that the Dubna results have been discredited is not reflected in the Element naming controversy entry, where it is treated merely as a claim made by one side in the controversy. For consistency, either beef it up there or water it down here :) Joestynes 09:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dubna arguments aside, shouldn't the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research at least get a mention? --MacRusgail 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] JINR
- A group at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna in Russia (then the Soviet Union) who claimed to have produced:
- 104, which they named kurchatovium after the Soviet chemist Igor Kurchatov.
- 105. Although their claim is disputed, the name dubnium is now official for this element, named after the city where they worked. They originally proposed nielsbohrium for this element.
- 106. now known as seaborgium
- 107. bohrium
I removed the above section from the article as I couldnt find any confirmation that these claims had been discredited. RIP-Acer 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)