7th period of the periodic table of elements is complete

Jan 1, 2016

The fourth IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) on the priority of claims to the discovery of new elements has reviewed the relevant literature for elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 and has determined that the claims for discovery of these elements have been fulfilled, in accordance with the criteria for the discovery of elements of the IUPAP/IUPAC Transfermium Working Group (TWG) 1991 discovery criteria.

These elements complete the 7th row of the periodic table of the elements, and the discoverers from Japan, Russia and the USA will now be invited to suggest permanent names and symbols. The new elements and assigned priorities of discovery are as follows:
Element 113 (temporary working name and symbol: ununtrium, Uut)
The RIKEN collaboration team in Japan have fulfilled the criteria for element Z=113 and will be invited to propose a permanent name and symbol.
Elements 115, 117, and 118 (temporary working names and symbols: ununpentium, Uup; ununseptium, Uus; and ununoctium, Uuo)
The collaboration between the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, USA; and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA have fulfilled the criteria for element Z=115, 117 and will be invited to propose permanent names and symbols.

To continue reading the entire article, click the name of the source below.

29 comments on “7th period of the periodic table of elements is complete

  • Japan getting naming rights, that could be cool, away with the boring names like Unrepentium. Uninspirium, Uninterestium that might be chosen by western committees.

    Unobtainium was the valuable stuff in the movie Avatar, as I recall.

    Maybe instead we’ll get Sushium, or Hellokittium, or Totorium…



    Report abuse

  • No, I remember unobtainium being used for the shell of the underground boreing machine in ‘The Core’.
    It was supposed to have a very high melting point and was a metal. Iridium would probably be the nearest in physical properties that we know of. I wonder what these ones would be like? They don’t give that sort of detail, apart from saying they decay very quickly.
    There was also a mention of elements ‘not in the periodic table’ in one of the Predator films. It had me laughing because it’s a bit like trying to find an integer between two and three. It just can’t happen, with elements it’s very similar, other than different isotopes of the same element and that’s mentioned in the article regarding the decay process.
    I think the most interesting part is these isotopes being unknown ones up until now….there we go, unknownium!
    It can never be discovered, just like the unicorn….
    Unicornium 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Yes, that’s what should already have happened, you would think?
    Very sad he died so young, at Gallipoli of all places.
    Shows what a terrible waste war is.
    What might he have gone on to do if he had not died then?



    Report abuse

  • NNA; as you will know, the range of half lives in the periodid table go from rubidium 87: 49 billion years; to fermium 244: 3.3 milliseconds; a fact that creationists are at liberty to falsify, but instead, choose to conveniently and wilfully ignore.

    “Flashinthepanium”; very good!



    Report abuse

  • Stafford Gordon
    Jan 2, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    a fact that creationists are at liberty to falsify, but instead, choose to conveniently and wilfully ignore.

    Ah! but they have published a “refutation of radiometric dating” in their Creation “Research Journal”, where their pseudo-scientists concluded (using the traditional circular thinking) that a piece of wood encased in radiometrically dated ancient lava, gave a young radio-carbon date for the wood, thereby “proving the flaws in radiometric dating” and confirming YEC!

    On closer examination of the information they omitted to mention in their article, real scientists concluded that incompetent investigators, who failed to check their wood sample for contamination with modern carbon from the groundwater it had been lying in, or while it was being passed around for a few weeks prior to testing, could produce ridiculously wrong results!!



    Report abuse

  • Sadly radio carbon dating is becoming more difficult to do as the amount of C14 in the air is reduced by the release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.
    The carbon being released has almost no C14 as it has all decayed since the plants it came from died so long ago.
    Apparently there will come a time when the dating technique will become almost useless. Another loss from the burning of fossil fuels.



    Report abuse

  • Tim Smith
    Jan 2, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    Sadly radio carbon dating is becoming more difficult to do as the amount of C14 in the air is reduced by the release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.

    This will have serious effects on archaeology, but fortunately geology and palaeontology use longer half-life isotopes.



    Report abuse

  • I love this Periodic table. Sent it to a friend of mine. He got it blown up and framed on his study wall. And I have used it to chilling effect when saving the world from the irrational on FearBook.



    Report abuse

  • But Alan, am I right in thinking that archaeology isn’t soley dependent on C14, since the design of the artifacts provide timescale evidence?

    I note that there is, as yet, as far as I know, no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, of the existence of the “detestable Nazarine heritic”, as Maimonides described Jesus.

    No trace of “the Exodus” either I understand.

    Ah, but I’m forgetting; evidence is surplus to requirements when it comes to this kind of stuff.



    Report abuse

  • Stafford Gordon
    Jan 3, 2016 at 6:44 am

    But Alan, am I right in thinking that archaeology isn’t soley dependent on C14, since the design of the artifacts provide timescale evidence?

    While styles and designs are indicative of historic periods, radiometric dating gives firm data on which to base these.
    As paper documents, buildings, fibres and wood are all carbon based, this is usually the best option.

    http://www.crowcanyon.org/index.php/radiometric-dating

    The radiometric dating technique used most widely in archaeology is radiocarbon, or C-14, dating.

    Any item that derives from a previously living organism—for example, a basket made of plant fibers or a scrap of animal hide—can be subjected to carbon-14 dating. The technique is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 years old.



    Report abuse

  • 24
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    On a more serious note… I’m personally in favor of naming elements after great scientists. There is no element named after Linus Pauling or Richard Feynman. Paulinium?…. Feynmium?



    Report abuse

  • This will have serious effects on archaeology, but fortunately geology and palaeontology use longer half-life isotopes.

    Serious? Surely the experts can and do take this into account in the equations. The percentage of C14 was hugely
    increased due to atmospheric nuclear weapons tests:

    radiocarbon bomb spike

    Now it’s reducing back towards pre-1950s levels. And if you know you are dating something from before the industrial
    revolution, what has happened to the percentage of C14 in the meantime does not effect the calculation? For the future, C14 dating will presumably have the benefit of more atmospheric measurement data.



    Report abuse

  • Marktony
    Jan 3, 2016 at 9:24 am

    And if you know you are dating something from before the industrial revolution, what has happened to the percentage of C14 in the meantime does not effect the calculation?

    I think the nature of the problem is that the same percentage figure can match two dates.

    There are reduced percentages of C14 from radioactive decay (as traditionally measured), and there are more recent reduced percentages of C14 from dilution of atmospheric CO2 by burnt fossil carbon emissions.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Bonnie

    Thanks for posting this – I shared with a lot of friends. I wonder how many will go through the list, nodding sagely in agreement at each, until they come to their own particular ridiculous belief and then exclaim loudly that this is just not right!

    I always remember the quote from Prof. Dawkins; we are all atheists, it’s just that those who call themselves atheists go one God further than others.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.