Talk:Synthetic element/Archive 1

Archive 1

what are some uses and dangers of synthetic elements?

I haven't been able to find a good answer for this anywhere else on here, but why do scientists continue to try to synthesize new, heavier elements? Seems like a lot of nonproductive effort since they all seem to disintegrate immediately after forming. Even if they stumbled upon a stable isotope and produced enough of it to see with the naked eye, chances are it wouldn't be anything special, just another element. What's wrong with the elements we have already? --72.85.16.46 02:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I KNOW!!!!! i never got why scienitsts want to make another element. they have no biological role, can possibly kill.....etc...seriously, is this where the money goes?Angelofdeath275 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World has a number of arguments for "pure research" nicely summarized for consumption. Among them is that the value of pure research, as opposed to industry research (which would include stuff with easily marketable & understood ends, like faster computers or GMOs) is in discovering completely new things. Without, for instance, research into what makes cells reproduce, the whole GMO gig would never have happened. Without curiosity as to what exactly those sparks are, we wouldn't have electricity. --mordicai. 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientists involved in neutron radiation exposure are involved in making new isotopes all the time. And the question becomes as to how all this data and information can best be organized. And so a system of reporting has been set up with the hopeful intent of reporting the maximum of information and with a minimum amount of inconsistencies. And one of the inconsistencies is the tendency of researchers to look for something and not find it and then extrapolate that information into the statement that the thing they are looking for can't exist. This can be described as changing a scientific fact into a scientific opinion which is a different category of information. Synthetic elements (and isotopes) are things that haven't yet been determined to naturally exist in nature in a stable state and are accordingly assumed to be naturally unstable. Examples would be some of the EE isotopes of both 62Sm and 84Po as well as some of the other EE isotopes of even Z heavy (above 87Fr) elements.WFPM (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History Section Should Be Expanded

There should be a comprehensive account of how and when all of at least the major synthetic elements were synthesized. I'd do it myself, but that requires extracting info from several other articles, and I don't have enough interest in this article to endure the tedium of that. Hopefully somebody will do that for me. RobertGustafson (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

About the lack of sources

Since this is an article containing mostly public domain common knowledge scientific facts, it doesn't really need sources for the most part. Where it does need them is on the specific details about when and how various elements have been synthesized--particularly in regards to who created them. Since all of the elements in the List section have their own articles, one should be able to find and copy the necessary relevant citations from them. I'd do it myself, but it's a tedious process--involving at least 30 articles--so I'm letting somebody else do the sourcing. Any takers? RobertGustafson (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

New section?

(Prescript: I realise this would be hard to maintain but i am sure there are enough enthusiasts out there for it not to be a problem)

I feel there should be a shortish(?) list of current synthesis projects. This could loosely be split into three: superheavy elements, heavy isotopes and light isotopes. Maybe if the list is very long only larger groups or groups of higher repute could be included (or those that if successful would mark a significant breakthrough).

Before anyone puts any real effort into this, have i missed this info elsewhere on wiki? I can't find it. If i have missed it, maybe a link is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mismatch between the article and the image

The article states that all elements above plutonium (94) are considered synthetic, however the periodic table is colored in such a way that implies that elements up to the atomic number of 98 are rarely naturally occurring as well. This discrepancy should be either explained or fixed. I myself don't know where the truth is. 86.49.74.166 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The picture is wrong; I've requested that it be edited at WP:GL/I. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The picture has been corrected by TilmannR. Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing the "Lack of Inline Citations" banner

The amount of inline citations has, I believe, reached the point where very little else needs to be citied. Does anyone have any objections to the banner being removed? HouseBlaster (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)HouseBlaster

Image

Is it possible to remove the undiscovered E119, and colour Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf in the synthetic purple? Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes! We should do what Double sharp said! Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell the difference between the two shades of purple in the table. Also, the red is not explained in the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.56.62 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconding the need for better contrasting colors on the chart. The colors are too close to easily differentiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.135.42.9 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur as well with the recommendation for a color palette change. Even with very mild color blindness, the two main colors are very difficult to distinguish. Nathhad (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)