Chemical element a7/22/2023 ![]() ![]() In 1669, German physician and chemist Johann Becher published his Physica Subterranea. Smoke represented the volatility (the mercury principle), the heat-giving flames represented flammability (sulphur), and the remnant ash represented solidity (salt). Mercury included the cohesive principle, so that when it left in smoke the wood fell apart. Paracelsus saw these principles as fundamental, and justified them by recourse to the description of how wood burns in fire. In 1524, Swiss chemist Paracelsus adopted Aristotle’s four element theory, but reasoned that they appeared in bodies as Geber’s three principles. Shortly thereafter, this evolved into the Arabic concept of the three principles: sulphur giving flammability or combustion, mercury giving volatility and stability, and salt giving solidity. 790 Arabian chemist Jabir ibn-Hayyan (Geber) postulated that metals were formed out of two elements: sulphur, ‘the stone which burns’, which characterized the principle of combustibility, and mercury, which contained the idealized principle of metallic properties. Aristotle defined an element as:Įlement – one of those bodies into which other bodies can be decomposed and which itself is not capable of being divided into other. Īdding to the four elements of the Greek philosopher Empedocles, in about 350 BC, Aristotle also used the term "element" and conceived of a fifth element called " quintessence", which formed the heavens. Plato assumed that the minute particle of each element corresponded to one of the regular polyhedra: tetrahedron (fire), octahedron (air), icosahedron (water), and cube (earth). In the case of David Norris’s Strasbourg success, it took the Irish government five years from 1988 to 1993 to effect decriminalisation.The term 'elements' ( stoicheia) was first used by the Greek philosopher Plato in about 360 BCE, in his dialogue Timaeus, which includes a discussion of the composition of inorganic and organic bodies and is a rudimentary treatise on chemistry. I have been through Strasbourg, in a seven-year case judged in my favour in 1981 over a breach of human rights due to the criminalisation of homosexuals in Northern Ireland. The only current one, not involving Russia or Armenia, is Liechtenstein v the Czech Republic which concerns the seizure in 1945 of the art treasures of head of state Prince Hans-Adam II. ![]() Such a timeframe suggests the new arrangements proposed in the legacy Bill would be near conclusion before any further Strasbourg judgment and thus a further application would be practically pointless.ĭublin, in its diplomatic policy, seems increasingly led by Northern ultras on these issues but the end result is more likely to undermine support for the Council of Europe in Britain, already a live and fraught debate, than force London to radically amend its Bill. Ireland’s last interstate case against the UK, a demand in 2014 to reopen the 1971 torture allegations, that were judged in 1978 by the court to involve inhumane treatment, failed by seven votes to one. However, there is no need to clutter the already hugely overcrowded human rights court with a duplicate application. The lead case was judged nearly 25 years ago and refers to a death in 1982. There are a series of cases known as the McKerr Group already in front of the Committee of Ministers, the court’s enforcement body in Strasbourg. This is not to mention the “On the Run” letters of comfort for those who fled across the Border.Īn interstate case is inappropriate for a number of reasons, both political and practical. Since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, there have also been a large number of part-amnesties to which the Irish government has subscribed, like the early release of convicted prisoners, or even demanded, like an end to UK requests for extradition. There is a strong element of hypocrisy in attacks on the Bill’s proposed immunity, given the three 1920s amnesties in the Irish Free State for soldiers, on all sides, a topic not brought up during recent discussions in the decade of centenaries. ![]() Sir, – I was saddened to read that Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was threatening to take Britain to the European Court of Human Rights if the UK’s Troubles legacy Bill becomes law, saying in the Dáil he would “give consideration to whether an interstate case is appropriate” (News, June 21st).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |