Authors' reply to the comments by Kamata et al

Reply to the Comments of Dikpati et al

We respond to Dikpati et al.’s criticism of our recent solar dynamo model. A different treatment of the magnetic buoyancy is the most probable reason for their different results.

Authors’ Reply to Comments

[1] D. A. Zogas and G. K. Karagiannidis, “Infinite-series representations associated with the bivariate Rician distribution and their applications,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1790–1794, Nov. 2005. [2] A. A. Abu-Dayya and N. C. Beaulieu, “Switched diversity on microcellular Ricean channels,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 970–976, Nov. 1994. [3] K. S. Miller, Mult...

The Authors’ Reply

Authors’ response to comments from Nachman KE et al.

Authors' response to comments letter to the editor from Nachman KE et al.

Authors' reply to letters from Egilman et al and Oliver et al

Dr Egilman and colleagues claim our report 1 implies that chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma. So did the International Chrysotile Association, the website of which highlighted our paper with the misleading headline 'reliable scientific data confirms negligible role of chryso-tile in UK patients with asbestos-related lung disease'. 2 Our results are consistent with the strong evidence that c...