Addendum to "On an unverified nuclear decay and its role in the DAMA experiment''

Abstract

We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a large modulation fraction of any putative signal holds. In fact, in light of DAMA's recent comment our claim is further corroborated. We identify the source of the discrepancy between our own analysis and DAMA's claimed levels of unmodulated background. Our analysis indicates that the background in the signal region as reported by DAMA is indeed likely underestimated.

6 pages, 2 figures; replacement of the original reply to arXiv:1210.6199 to include a response to the second critique in arXiv:1211.6346. A fit to the unmodulated rate including signal is presented. No change in the conclusions