We reply to the Comment of van Neumann-Cosel et al. [Phys. Rev. C 44, 554119911]. Some of our results were quoted incorrectly in the Comment; the correct values are listed in Table I. We extend the analysis of the Comment by also discussing our most recent result for '"In. An experimental investigation of Monte Carlo predictions made in the Comment shows that the intensity of additional environmental Compton scattering is seriously overestimated. PACS number(s): 25.20.Dc, 27.50. +e, 27.60.+j The Comment of von Neumann-Cosel et al. [1] on our paper on the resonant and nonresonant contributions to the photoactivation of "'Cd [2] can be separated into twoparts. In the first part they compare our results for the resonant cross sections for the photoactivation of isomeric levels in " In, " In, and Sr with cross sections obtained from other nuclear structure data and claim that the two sets of data can be correlated with the magnitude of the nonresonant cross sections. One relevant result [3] was not discussed in the Comment and some of our results were not quoted correctly. We will discuss this in detail below.In the second part they make the assumption that their Eq. (3) was used by us in four investigations [2,4 -6]. We have never used this equation; it has several defects and is inappropriate for our experimental arrangement. They also make Monte Carlo calculations to estimate the intensity of environmental Compton scattering but an experimental investigation is in disagreement with their estimate. We will discuss this in detail below.In their Table I they compare our experimental results for " In, " In, and Sr with resonant cross sections derived from nuclear structure data obtained with other experimental techniques. There are no relevant nuclear structure data available for "'Cd, but it is possible to compare our result with another photoactivation result [7]. Our most recent result for '"In [3], which was obtained after refinement of our technique, was not discussed in the Comment. This result replaces the pioneering result [4] obtained five years earlier. Unlike the first result, Ref. [3] and the other results in Table I were ob-tained with a sophisticated teletherapy source and housing arrangements.There was also an error in the data analysis of Ref.[4] and the most recent result should be used. One should also note that the authorships of Refs.[3] and [4] are difFerent. Four of the remaining results were not quoted correctly. For " In the quoted uncertainty in o. I~of +1 pb keV is taken from a misprint in their Ref.[4]. The , correct uncertainty of +11 pb keV was given in their Ref.[29]. The reduction of the real uncertainty by an order of magnitude in their Table I has the effect of supporting their claim that there is a significant difference between our value and the nuclear structure value; in fact they agree at the 1o. level. For "'Cd three of the four values, or uncertainties, of our nonresonant cross sections were not quoted correctly. If we use the more recent result for " In, six of the fourteen ...