Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!jablow
From: jablow@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Eric Robert Jablow)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: promethium
Message-ID: <13196@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 15-Apr-86 22:50:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13196
Posted: Tue Apr 15 22:50:38 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Apr-86 01:37:13 EST
References: <921@ellie.UUCP> <36000125@uiucdcs> <943@ellie.UUCP> <6588@utzoo.UUCP> <13190@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jablow@brahms.UUCP (Eric Robert Jablow)
Organization: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute
Lines: 28

In article <13190@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>Follow ups to net.sci only!
>
>In article <6588@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>I have news for you:  they still do.  There is, um, a small difference of
>>opinion on the names for elements 104 and 105.  104 is either Hahnium or
>>Kurchatovium; 105 is Rutherfordium or I-forget-what.
>
>104 was named rutherfordium and 105 hahnium in the West.
>
>I'm not sure, but I have heard that neutral names have been selected for
>good for elements 104, 105, 106.  Namely unnilquadrium, unnilpentium, and
>unnilhexium, with symbols Unq, Unp, and Unh.
>
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

Absolutely correct.  The point is to avoid these nationalistic
rivalries in element naming.  You will note that similar disputes are
happening in epidemiology, where the appropiate bodies are trying to
come up with a final name for the AIDS virus.  Priority disputes are
always unpleasant.  Look at the follies surrounding DeBranges' Theorem
(=The Bieberbach Conjecture).  These names may be ugly, but ugliness is
better than international scientific warfare.

			Respectfully,
			Eric Robert Jablow
			MSRI
			ucbvax!brahms!jablow