SCIENCE JOURNAL 2018

Island of Stability The island of stability (Appendix 1 and 3), is at the tip of the peninsula of stability. The elements on this island are very heavy. Although this would make it hard for an isotope to be stable, those located on the island would theoretically have the correct proton to neutron ratio (magic numbers) (allowing for the perfect balance of electrostatic repulsion and strong nuclear force) and have longer half-lives, which would allow scientists to research an element’s properties in detail (LibreTexts, 2016). This island is only theoretical and therefore highlights the question of whether it is worth continuing this research. Factors Economical An argument against the research into superheavy elements is the significant cost of machinery and technology involved in the process of creating and identifying superheavy elements. The process involves “large-scale accelerator facilities, sophisticated magnetic separators, efficient detectors and time” (Hinde, 2016). The cost to create an accelerator can be $5 billion (The Economist, 2013) and running it can cost $1 billion per year (Knapp, 2012) . Also, Californium, which was the target of calcium-48 to create element 118, costs $27 million a gram (Sinster, 2017). These do not even consider the costs involved in the experimentation. The opportunity cost must also be considered. Although researching into this area might benefit countries’ economies if an element has uses in manufacturing, the benefits you could reap from investing money into areas of science such as renewable energy, cures for cancer and medical breakthroughs are evident. It took Japan ten years (after equipment were developed) to discover 3 atoms of element 113 (Hinde, 2016). With short half-lives and no instant and clear use, these elements have no practical or real-life applications.

Political Like many areas of science, research into superheavy elements have numerous political factors to be considered. As this research is a worldwide concept, countries can pull their resources together and therefore be more efficient whilst developing stronger relationships. However, there could be controversy over ‘bragging and naming rights’ and lead to political rifts. Superheavy elements have the possibility to improve atomic nucleus models with purposes in element formation and nuclear medicine (Hinde, 2016). However, this in turn can lead to a pathway being provided to create weapons and encourage a competitive nature between countries to discovering these first. This may lead to an atmosphere of worldwide tension and hysteria drawing parallels with the Cold War and the Arms Race in which there were nuclear warfare involving atomic bombs (History, 2016). There is also the controversial question of whether the person who discovered the element that led to new weapons should be accountable, even if they created it unwittingly. Conclusion It is clear that the claim- “Superheavy elements are so unstable that there is no point trying to synthesis new elements” has many facets to explore. Conclusively however, there are too many uncertainties in the uses and benefits of newly discovered superheavy elements. The benefits are outweighed by the expensive cost, inefficient use of time and possible political issues. Also, the creation of the elements has very low chances as the size of an elements largely affects the stability. Although exploring superheavy elements can allow us to delve deeper into the subatomic world, these resources could still be better spent elsewhere on achieving more concrete benefits for the future.

SC J SI

41

Somerset College Journal of Scientific Issues

Year 10