（I)より続く。
Chemical and structural properties of the following three samples of“adsorbed material” (AM) were investigated using Electron-Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) and x-ray diffraction: (i) the first sample, here referred to as AM-I, was extracted from the surface of the bow, stern, stack of the CheonAn ship; (ii) the second sample, AM-II, was extracted from the surface of the propeller of the torpedo; (iii) the third sample, AM-III, was from the inner surface of the Al plate used to cover the top of the metal tank that housed enough ocean water where a small scale explosion was tested.
そしてこう述べる。
It has presented two pieces of evidence to support its claim: that white compounds – “adsorbed materials” in the JIG's report (we analyzed the Korean-language JIG report) – found on the torpedo match those found on the surfaces of the Cheonan ship; and that the compounds resulted from an explosion.
Lee氏はAM-IとAM-IIが一致することは認めるが、それが爆発に由来する化合物であることを次のようなEDSデータに基づいて否定する。
But the intensity ratio of the oxygen peak and the aluminum peak in their EDS data of the AM-1 and AM-2 is very different from that of the alumina, Al2O3, that the JIG argues is formed during the explosion. This means that the AM-1 and AM-2 samples have nothing to do with any explosion, but are most likely aluminum that has rusted after exposure to moisture or water for a long time. An independent scientist, Dr. Yang Panseok, a member of the University of Manitoba’s department of geological sciences, has found that the EDS intensity ratio of hydrogen and aluminum in the compounds is not even close to that of the Al2O3 that the JIG claims constitutes the compounds. Rather, it matches that of an aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3.This alone clearly tells us that the AM-1 and AM-2 are not associated with any explosion.
EDSデータの解析についての問題点に加えて、x-ray diffractionデータにも問題のあることを次のように指摘する。
Furthermore, the x-ray diffraction pattern of the AM-3 third sample that was extracted from the JIG's test explosion is completely different from the x-ray patterns of the AM-1 and AM-2. The main difference is that in AM-3 sharp peaks are present indicating (1) only a fraction of the Al (aluminum) oxidized during the explosion, and (2) the un-oxidized Al remains in its crystalline form, while in AM-1 and AM-2 no signal related to any Al-related compounds was observed.
そして
In fact, the JIG x-ray data of the AM-3 sample (the JIG's test experiment data) shows strong crystalline Al signals and weak crystalline Al2O3, consistent with the Lee experimental results. However, when the media reported our experimental results and the inconsistencies between the AM-3 and the other two samples, the ROK ministry of defense responded that the crystalline Al signal found in the AM-3 sample was due to an experimental mistake, which we believe is a plain lie. To summarize, our scientific analysis and experiment lead us to conclude that (1) JIG's AM-1 and AM-2 samples did not result from an explosion and (2) some of JIG's data, most likely the AM-3 EDS data, may have been fabricated.
この強調部分で「our scientific analysis and experiment」とあるのはLee氏らが行った独自の加熱実験のことで、Were the “Critical Evidence” presented in the South Korean Official Cheonan Report fabricated?に次のように述べられている。
we have performed SEM, EDS and XRD measurements on the following two samples: (1) Al powder without heat treatment and (2) an Al powder that was heated at 1100 ℃ for 40 min and quenched in water in less than 2 sec.
この(2)は火薬が爆発するとAlが結晶状になるということの証明としてなされたのである。JIGで行った爆発実験が民間では出来ないからとアルミ粉末を1100 ℃ で40 分間加熱し、水中での冷却の模してであろう２秒以内に水で冷却したのは苦心の作としても、私にはにはこれがどうして爆発実験の代わりになるのかが理解出来ない。爆発は一瞬に起こるもの、それがどうして1100 ℃の40分間加熱に相当することになるのだろう。そう思ってみるとこのような疑問とは無縁のLee氏が急にアマチュア実験家のように見えてきた。JIGのデータに矛盾のあることの指摘はもっともであるだけに、このギャップが気になる。その意味ではLee氏らが提案する国際社会による客観的かつより包括的な調査の重要性が大きく浮かび上がったと言えよう。
ここで最初の疑問に戻るが、なぜＮａｔｕｒｅが韓国哨戒艦沈没事件を二度に亘って取り上げたのか理解に苦しむ。Lee氏らの物理実験と言えば私の知る限りネット上での記事に過ぎない。また批判の対象となったJIG報告書の中のデータも誰もがアクセス出来る科学論文のような形で公表されたものでもない。そういう異例ずくめの情況であえてこの政治問題を取り上げるＮａｔｕｒｅの真意が不可解である。もしかしてＮａｔｕｒｅ－Ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ Ｓｃｉｅｎｃｅｓでも近々発刊するつもりかな、とげすの勘ぐりが始まったところで筆をおくことにしよう。
