Here's the problem. As an avid science fan, and chemist, my first reaction was "wasn't 112 there last time I looked at the periodic table?". And, sure enough, all the PTs in the lab (none of which were printed in the last 12 hours) all indicate element 112 there, smiling at me below mercury and just raising the question about what prompted the article... and its front page position.
So, here's the wikipedia scoop. Ununbium was first discovered in 1996, in Darmstadt, Germany. Like most of it's heavy brothers, 112 is synthesised by smashing things together, in this case, its lead and zinc. So what is new? Well, the IUPAC overseers of these things have re-confirmed that the discovery was real, and have credited those German discoverers with the first atom of Ununbium... meaning they can now name it.
So, is this a case of a journalist getting it all wrong in science? Am I being too pedantic by getting annoyed at how it's taken 12 years for this discovery to be reported by the Ottawa Citizen... and even then that they haven't really told the story.
What are some of the worst examples of science reporting that you can think of?