harbans wrote: He should point out why he still supports some international experts on the Seismic part of the tests, when Sikka has given a technical rebuttal.
As I understand, the game had long ago moved away from the use of support of international experts from KS end. He is now clearly talking of the establishment data itself and wants a third party (within country) inquiry.
However we did discuss on BRF that the seismic part of test can not be proven or dis-proven without the access to the constants and measurements for various parameters of equations that are used.
As I understand the biggest flaw in the Sikka papers etc is that they do not use data from Pokharan but use internationally published data for other Seismic regions. This is justified in the name of preserving secrecy of tests (I dont know what secrecy dont ask me
Thus both the Indian and the firangi papers use data which is from outside India. It then becomes whom to believe.
Basically the papers do not completely quash the open question.
On radiology there are many issues
1) KS says that the paper that Sikka et al have put does not show enough data to make the claim that the paper makes
2) Arun_S reviewed the paper and laid various issues with it
3) Shiv and others (including NPA) have said that the radiological method in the paper is not THE method which is the most accurate but some other method of questionable accuracy.
The word used for the paper (not mine) has been Shitty science. Issues have been raised about the quality of journals in which these peer reviewed papers have been posted as well.
Complicated aint it.