but are not limited to: neglect of higher order terms; treatment of the run- ning coupling, especially at low q $^{2}$; and the translation of the realistic medium density to the brick problem for which the analytic theoretical derivation was applied. 

[306] claimed that BDMPS-based radiative energy loss models are a fragile probe of the medium; i.e. large changes in ˆ q , the input parameter for the theory, are not reflected in R$_{AA}$ predictions incompatible with data. Surface emission, the process in which only the partons produced very close to the medium edge escape for observation, was posited as the reason for their observed insensitivity to increased medium opacity. This is an appealing argument, and [296, 395] provided some evidence for this idea. The very pessimistic conclusion, then, was that jet tomography is not possible at Rhic and will not be possible at the $_{Lhc}$. 

We counter the dire claims in [306] by first noting that several approxi- mations were made in their description of the medium produced in heavy ion collisions. In [306], the authors used a hard cylinder initial nuclear density and did not include Bjorken expansion. [296, 395] used the realistic Woods-Saxon nuclear density distribution but again neglected Bjorken expansion. These certainly aided in alleviating some of the high numerical cost involved in the calculations. However we feel these geometrical simplifications strongly biased their results to the surface of the medium, resulting in a significant loss in model sensitivity. Moreover, experimental error bars have shrunk consider- ably in the time since [306] were published. These issues raise serious doubts 

