[crow_of_darkness]

    Looking today, more carefully the periodic table i noticed that: The radioactive chemical element with atomic number 105, is named Dubnium. According to my sources the element has the name Hahnium(Took this name for give honor to German Dr. Otto Hahn.). Also you say that it was isolated in 1970, in USA.(I think you mean for first time-Correct me if i am wrong). I found that it was composed in 1967 in Dubna(USSR) for first time BUT the Soviets didnt gave it a name at this time.(Because as they said they wanted to collect more informations about it). The American composed it in 1970 in Bercley-California with atomic-weight 260(No 262 as you say). However, i have to say that the Soviets in '67, create also an isotope with atomic weight 261. Whats the real story?
    Thanks

[jdurg]

   I recpect your opinion, BUT i have a different point of view. I believe that what i have post until now is 100% TRUE(For 104 and 105.) You cannot-nobody can, reject what is ritten to the WORLDS MOST FAMOUS encyclopedia Larrus-Brittanica. Doesnt mean because you work with Rt OR Ku(I will ensist that the name is NOT definite) you are correct too. I know people that work for years with a subject and dont know basic things OR what they believe is incorrect.(Thats not an attack against you).
    Finally i have to say that i agree with your explanations about 262 of Du.( why you writte it 262) BUT IN REALITY is 260. As for your aggressive attitude i will NOT comment.

Crow, IUPAC is the standard in Chemistry.  What they say is what you have to accept.  Take a look at this webpage:  http://www.iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/index.html.  It is IUPAC's periodic table.  The element names and symbols given there are their names and symbols.  There are no exceptions.  The atomic masses given there are the atomic masses of the elements.  There are no exceptions.  Go check the date that your "errorless encyclopedia" was printed.  I guarantee you that the date is not anywhere close to as recent as the webpage linked above is.  I'm sorry that you feel differently, but IUPAC is correct and the encyclopedia is wrong.  Heck, I could go and get a copy of the Encyclopedia Brittanica from 1898 and a say that a great number of the elements on current periodic tables simply don't exist.    At the time the encyclopedia was made it may have been correct, but right now it is completely incorrect.  Our goal here at chemicalforums is the provide the most up to date and accurate information about chemistry.  Since IUPAC IS the standard for chemistry, what they say goes.

[Elgon]

Can we at least agree on using the correct symbol for rutherfordium? It is Rf, not Rt.

[constant thinker]

Also when you google periodic table it gives what jdurg has in his nice looking element collection/periodic table.

For people's ease:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=periodic+table&btnG=Google+Search