Question

Elements with atomic numbers of 104 and greater are known as super-heavy elements. None of these elements have been found in nature but instead have been made in a laboratory. They are very difficult and expensive to create, and they break down into other elements quickly. There currently are no practical applications for any of these elements. However, some scientists believe that, with further work, they may discover some isotopes of super-heavy elements that are more stable and that could possibly have practical implications. Do you think that scientists should continue to try to create super-heavy elements and expand the periodic table? Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

Argument for continuing to create super-heavy elements:

-The periodic table is one of the most important and widely used tools in chemistry. Expanding it would increase our understanding of the elements and their properties.

-Discovering new elements and isotopes can lead to unexpected scientific breakthroughs and advancements.

-The creation of super-heavy elements involves cutting-edge technology and scientific expertise, which can push the boundaries of human knowledge and drive innovation.

Argument against continuing to create super-heavy elements:

-The process of creating super-heavy elements is extremely difficult and expensive. There may be more pressing scientific problems that deserve funding and resources.

-The super-heavy elements are highly unstable and break down quickly, so it is unlikely that any practical applications will ever be found.

-The production of super-heavy elements requires the use of high-energy particle accelerators, which can generate hazardous by-products and waste.