\relax 
\citation{CL}
\citation{Henke}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Introduction}{1}}
\citation{Scofield}
\citation{Saloman}
\citation{Henke1993}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Saloman}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Henke}
\citation{Henke1993}
\citation{Cullen}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Wang}
\citation{Gerward}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Wang}
\citation{Gerward}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Major discrepancies}{2}}
\citation{Wang}
\citation{Gerward}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Attenuation in silver relative to Chantler (1995) $\sigma _{PE}$. Scattering indicated by Chantler $\sigma _{TOT}$. Silver shows an array of data\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Saloman1988} quoted at 1\% - 3\%, but with variation of 28\%, or 16\% for more recent measurements. Theory shows variations of 7\%. }}{3}}
\newlabel{Silver}{{1}{3}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Major discrepancies in the form factor of copper. Scattering is minor. Quoted experimental uncertainty given by symbol size\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Saloman1988,Wang,Gerward,CreaghMc}. Measurements of f$^{\prime \prime }$ or $\sigma _{PE}$ for copper have quoted 1\% accuracy, but discrepancies reach 25\% near edges and 8\% away from edges. This has been stressed recently. Theories disagree by 6\%, and experiment and theory disagree by 12\% away from edges.}}{3}}
\newlabel{Copper}{{2}{3}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Reliability criteria for Experimental Results: Which should one consult?}{3}}
\citation{CreaghH}
\citation{ChantlerOptQ}
\citation{ChantlerCopper}
\citation{CreaghH}
\citation{Mika}
\citation{Chantler1994}
\citation{Henke1993}
\citation{ChantlerOptQ}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\citation{Zhou}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Uncertainties near soft X-ray LII, LIII, MIV, MV edges}{4}}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Henke}
\citation{Scofield}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Saloman1988}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Henke}
\citation{Scofield}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Krypton}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Krypton}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{Krypton}
\citation{ChantlerCopper}
\citation{stanglmeier}
\citation{Wang}
\citation{Sandiago}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\citation{ChantlerCopper}
\citation{stanglmeier}
\citation{Wang}
\citation{Sandiago}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\citation{Chantler1995}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\citation{CreaghMc}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Attenuation in Zn (Z=30), represented by Im (f). Experimental data from\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Saloman1988}. Refs\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Chantler1995,Henke,Scofield} agree with available experiment, but all have large error, as indicated by the new result\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Chantler2000}.}}{5}}
\newlabel{Zinc}{{3}{5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Plot illustrating the consistency of near-edge structure between experiment\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Krypton} and\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Chantler2000}, as opposed to earlier theory. Im (f) = $f_2$. Experimental values include contributions from scattering. $[\mu /\rho ]$ (in cm2/g) = $f_2$ (e/atom) $\times 5.02152\times 10^5$.}}{6}}
\newlabel{Kr}{{4}{6}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces  Comparison between\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {ChantlerCopper} and earlier measurements\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {stanglmeier,Wang,Sandiago,CreaghMc} for copper. Data are compared to theory\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {Chantler1995,Chantler2000}, $\{\%={[\mu /\rho ]-[\mu /\rho ]_{theory}\over [\mu /\rho ]_{theory}}\}$, with theoretical uncertainty given by the region between dashed lines, which increases to 20\% near the K-edge. The comparison of mass absorption coefficient is identical to that of Im(f). An alternate theory\nobreakspace  {}\cite  {CreaghMc} agrees with the reference theory, and agreement of the experimental data with current theory is good. }}{6}}
\newlabel{Copperexpt}{{5}{6}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Current Experimental Issues}{6}}
\citation{Chantler2000}
\bibcite{CL}{1}
\bibcite{Henke}{2}
\bibcite{Chantler1995}{3}
\bibcite{Scofield}{4}
\bibcite{Saloman}{5}
\bibcite{Henke1993}{6}
\bibcite{Saloman1988}{7}
\bibcite{Chantler2000}{8}
\bibcite{Cullen}{9}
\bibcite{Wang}{10}
\bibcite{Gerward}{11}
\bibcite{CreaghH}{12}
\bibcite{ChantlerOptQ}{13}
\bibcite{ChantlerCopper}{14}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{Conclusion}{7}}
\bibcite{Mika}{15}
\bibcite{Chantler1994}{16}
\bibcite{CreaghMc}{17}
\bibcite{Zhou}{18}
\bibcite{Krypton}{19}
\bibcite{stanglmeier}{20}
\bibcite{Sandiago}{21}