Dear Editor

We would like to the referee for his kind and professional comments.
We changed the previous manuscriot by following the referee's suggestion.

Comments
1) The combined result for 184Re is 35.4 +- 0.7 d. From the three individual results of 35.1 +- 0.5, 36.0 +- 0.9, and 35.6 +- 0.5 d I would expect a smaller uncertainty of about 0.3 d for the combined result (if the errors are independent).
Answer
Yes, we changed the uncertainty.

Comments
2) The presentation of the results for 164Ho is too short and difficult to understand. E.g., there are 4 decay curves in Fig. 3. Only two curves are discussed in the text; these curves correspond to the decay of the isomer in 164Ho. The remaining two curves from the ground state decay of 164Ho must be composed of feeding from the 164Ho isomer and beta-decay. Such an explanation should be added at the end of Sect. 3.

Answer
Yes, we added the following sentence in Set. 3.

Note that the decay curves of 91.4 keV and 73.4 keV from the decay 
of $^{164}$Ho must be composed of feeding from the $^{164}$Ho isomer 
and $\beta$-decay.

3) The conclusion (also in the abstract) "that measured half-lives of all unstable nuclei near the beta stability line are not robust" seems to be too strong. I suggest to replace "are not robust" by "may be not robust".

Yes, we change it to "by be not robust".


Minor wordings:
p.3, l.4:
"gamma-rays irradiated after the beta decay" -> "gamma-rays emitted after the beta decay"

Yes.

Also, please remove the blue boxes from the email address and references 

Yes. This suggestion is very difficult.
The "hyperref" cannot work in our PC, and I cannot change PoS.sty.

Best regrad
Takehito Hayakawa