St, Nicholas. "Four New Names Officially Added to the Periodic Table of Elements." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Dec. 2016. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.
After reading this article published by Nicholas Flueler titled, “Four New Names Officially Added to the Periodic Table of Elements,” it discusses the how four new elements that were added to the periodic table in January of this year are being named. The new elements being put into the periodic table are Nihoniun, Moscovium, Tennessine and Oganesson. The numbers for these elements are 113, 115, 117 and 118. These elements were synthesized between 2002 and 2010, but it took till 2015 for the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry to officially recognise them. Now, all four of the new elements have names and symbols with Nh, Mc, Ts and Og. The namers of these elements, according to Fleur, are, “A trio of research institutions - the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, in Russia; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California.” The elements named were synthesized using nuclear reactors and particle accelerators. These elements are highly unstable, do not last long enough to study, and do not exist in the natural world, but can only be made in a controlled area.
The addition of these elements to the periodic table and their naming have a strong impact on the scientific community as well as students of chemistry. With these four elements filling the 7th period, the periodic table will no longer look like it has gaps. In addition, these elements are significant because they represent the progression of scientific technology. With the creation of nuclear reactors and particle accelerators designed to synthesize new elements, it shows that it is possible to create more elements, even if they are extremely heavy and do not last. Soon, students of chemistry will be researching these elements and try what properties these new elements may have.
I feel that this article is very well written and includes all of the major details about the discovery of these elements as well as the naming of these elements. Another thing this article did well was giving context to readers who may not know a lot about chemistry, and educate them so they can understand how important these new elements are. Although this article was good, it was not perfect. The small size of this article limits the amount of information the reader can take in about this subject, and at times, I found myself briefly researching the topic to further understand all the details about this discovery. If the article was longer, it would give more information to the reader.
My fellow student Matthew Rizzo wrote a very good current event about four new names being added to the periodic table of Elements. In his review he does a good job of simplifying the information the article gives. This is good because it gives the reader an easier time understanding what the article is about without having them read the article themself and waste time. He also does a very good job summing up the impact that this discovery has on the scientific world. This shows that he understands the impact of this discovery and he also helps the reader understand its impact. He also did a good job critiquing the article. He said that the article was small and did not go into much detail which is a valid point.
ReplyDeleteWhile his current event was overall pretty solid there was some flaws that held it back slightly. One of the flaws is that he did not make a personal connection to the material which gives his current event a less personal feeling. He can fix this by giving a brief description about how he reacted to this discovery. He also lacks quotes from the article which could have easily made his argument more valid. He can fix this by grabbing some quotes from the article and using them.
This current event taught me about science that I didn't know happened which is very interesting. This current event also taught me how fast modern science is advancing. I choose this current event because i was interested in the title alone. I had no idea four new elements were found and that sparked my interest. This current event changed my perception because there is still so many elements humans have not discovered which proves that we still have a lot of work left to do.
My fellow classmate, Matthew Rizzo, wrote a very insightful review on the article “Four New Names Officially Added to the Periodic Table of Elements,” by Nicholas Flueler. He did an excellent job giving context and background information on the elements. He also does a great job pulling quotes from the article to back up what he is saying. And lastly he did a very nice job summarizing the article, so that even if someone didn’t read the article, and just read Matthew’s review on the article, they would still be highly informed of the important and necessary information.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Matthew wrote a very strong review, there are some areas he could improve upon. One being that he could state and go more in depth on his opinion and reaction to the article. Another aspect Matthew could improve upon is correcting some grammatical or punctuation errors.
Overall Matthew wrote a very thorough and detailed review, that provided me with great insight on the article and the topic. I found it fascinating that 4 new elements were discovered and there will no longer be gaps in the table.
My classmate Matt did a very good job reviewing the article “Four New Names Officially Added to the Periodic Table of Elements,” with three things in particular standing out as very well done. First of all, the summary is short, however it included all of the information needed to fully understand the point the article was trying to convey. In addition, Matt includes quotes from the article. This is good because it backs up all of the points made in the summary with evidence, making it seem much more accurate. Finally, Matt did an excellent job relating the points made in the article to students in chemistry. This is important, because he emphasizes how the finding of new elements could help the future of chemistry, and how new elements are found.
ReplyDeleteWhile there were some very good aspects of this review, there are two things that could be improved. Firstly, there are a few typos that could be fixed, such as a misspelling of the name Flueler, and a few grammatical errors in the first sentence. In addition, Matt mentions how the elements were synthesized by nuclear reactors and particle accelerators. In order to make the review even better, Matt could further explain the way in which the elements were synthesized, so the reader can understand the process better.
Overall, this review was excellent and I was able to learn a lot from it. I had no idea four new elements, Nh, Mc, Ts and Og, were being added to the periodic table. I also had no idea it took so long for new elements to be approved by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.