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.