1. ID198: The relation between deposit energies of the muons and their primary energies, and the relation between the deposit energies and their cherenkov light yields in KM3 detector By N.Takahashi, Y.Okumura and A.Misaki

2. Conclusion of my talk Q: Can KM3 detectors (ICeCube and others ) construct (extremely) high energy neutrino spectrum reliably? A: Probably No Final Conclusion is obtaied through the consideration of combination of the neutrino interaction properties with the unknown neutrino spectrum Accurate treatments in the range fluctuation of high energy muons and the related Cherenkov light yields are highly desirable. ArXiv:1108.1246v1[astro-ph,He5] Aug 2011 and subsequent papers.

3. ID191: From Oral to Poster Is it possible to extract the evidence for neutrino oscillation definitely in the cosmic ray experiments? --- Re-analysis of L/E distribution by Super-Kamiokande in the computer numerical experiment --- ID 198: From Poster to Oral The relation between deposit energies of the muons and their primary energies, and the relation beteen the deposit energies and their Chrenokv light yields in KM3 detector

4. My Original Oral Presentation is ID191, but not ID198 (Present) Chinese Program Committee rejected my oral presentation ID191and have not responded yet in site of my repeated protest. Instead, the some Chinese colleagues told me [1] The abstract of Prof.Misaki Akeo’s presentation related to SuperK was review by a NOC member who is an expert in that field And he decided to change it to a poster presentation. We can’t change his idea and therefore we make Prof.Misaki’s second presentation from poster request to an oral talk, in order not to upset Prof.Misaki Akeo too much. (To Misaki, July 26) [2] As far as I know, the recommendation of the NOC on your papers is 191 as poster and 198 as oral. Please note that the NOC did evaluate your abstracts carefully when making the recommendation and your personal view has been considered.

5. Who can evaluate the quality of the submitted paper ? The program committee members or the PATICIPANTS of the conference ? The minority opinion should be carefully treated in the scientific community. Without sincere discussion between the majority and minority, there are no sound progress in science

6. Citation of the statement from the statement by IceCube arXiv1009.1442v1[astro-ph.CO]8 Sep 2010

7. Citation of Photos from IceCube, arXiv:1101.1692v1[astro-ph.He] 10 Jan 2011 Pictures for Cherenkov light yields

8. Fundamental questions to ICeCube Are Chrenkov light Yields really proportional to dE/dX? Are dE/dX really proportional to primary energies ?

9. Ｔｈｅ u ｓｕａｌ t ｒｅａｔ ｍｅｎｔ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｄ E/dx with ＭＣ method

10. Our approach to extremely high energy muons Every stochastic processes concerned are exactly taken into account. 1 Interaction points due to different interactions 2 the corresponding energies due to different interactions in the muons. 3 cascade showers and the related Cherenkov light yields

11. Figure 13 Range Distributions from 10 12 to 10 18 eV Muon

12. Relation between energy loss and Cherenkov light yield. γ e-e- e+e+ Shower Cherenkov BremsungDirect pair μ Detection for cherenkov light Every physical process is simulated exactly in stochastic mannerC

13. Ｆｉｇｕｒｅ１ Ratio of Cherenkov Light due to the accompanied cascade shower to the total Cherenkov light

14. The shortest Average-like The longest E=10 18 eV

15. Figure 8 Correlation between Energy Loss and Cherenkov light produced at 200 meters for 10 16 eV

16. Figure 9 Correlation between Energy Loss and Cherenkov light produced for 10 16 eV

17. Figure 10 Correlation between Energy Loss and Cherenkov light for 10 16 eV Muon

18. Transition curves for cherenkov light yield for 10 13 eV

19. Transition curves for cherenkov light yield for 10 15 eV

20. Morphological Difference between charged current (CC)interactions and neutral current(NC)ones Q1: High energy muons are track-like ? Q2: NC events are cascade-like ? Q3: CC event s are [tack-like + cascade like ]?