Homestead mailing list

["Karen L. Black" <karen AT plamondon.com>]

I suggested that a +6 oxidation was not all that unusual.

Bill forges ahead:
> You're bending the truth quite a bit.

Those are pretty strong words. I listed the elements in the periodic table
that have oxidation states of +6; they occur in groups VIA, VIIA, and VIB in
addition to the four actinide elements you mentioned.
****************************************************
>Only in the higher elements does the shell structure achieve the size
necessary to support three elements in a row with the same valance.  The
first time we notice it is in the transition metals, where lots of
horizontal neighbors have valance of 2 or 3.

That's particularly noticable in the Group VIIIA triads: iron/cobalt/nickel,
rubidium/rhodium/palladium, and osmium/iridium/platinum.

On a physical level, what we find in the fourth row is a nucleus shielded by
three full orbital shells of electrons. That makes the outer-shell electrons
easily detached, which accounts for metals' reflectivity, malleability, and
conductivity.

The lanthanides and actinides take this similarity a step further. They all
act like group IIIA elements. In fact, several of the lanthanides and group
IIIA elements were found mingled in ore samples from Sweden, which is why
Ytterby, a small town in Sweden, has four elements named after it (yttrium,
ytterbium, terbium and erbium).
***************************************************
> Further, neptunium, plutonium, and americium
(the 3 sixes in question) became known as elements roughly in order
shortly after transmutation of elements first occurred (by human
intervention) in a reactor.

The first artifically-produced element was technetium (1937). This was
followed by neptunium (1940), plutonium (1940), curium (1944) and americium
(1944). Np & Pu were produced by cyclotron neutron bombardment of uranium.
Curium was produced by helium-ion bombardment of plutonium, and americium by
successive neutron captures by plutonium. (Berkeley had the big gun, and so
created all of these.)

And to call them "unnatural" begs the question: on what time scale? Were the
earth considerably younger than it is, radioactive elements like technetium
and neptunium would be still present from the original formation of the
planet. Were the earth considerably older, we'd see even fewer radioactive
elements, especially those that were not themselves decay products.
****************************************************************************
**
> And if it were true, what would be your number of the beast to leave to
future generations to ponder?  93, 94, 95 (their atomic numbers)?  It's
just not as catchy!

I don't believe in numerology or cryptic phrases. If I were to give a
warning to future generations, I'd make it as clear and as specific as
possible.

Karen Black
Blodgett, OR