Washington, D.C. — In an open letter to Science magazine, the American Nuclear Society (ANS), a professional nuclear science and technology society representing over 10,000 members worldwide, expressed its membership’s skepticism toward claims made in a recent article that advocated high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel should be reclassified by the United States and restricted from commercial use in powering advanced reactor designs. The ANS emphasized the importance of a balanced, science-based discussion, and scrutinized the unscientific and hyperbolic nature of the arguments presented in the article.

“We acknowledge the importance of this discussion and the necessity of continually evaluating the proliferation risks associated with nuclear materials,” wrote ANS President Lisa Marshall in the letter. “However, after extensive technical review of the article by members and officers of the ANS Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division and the ANS Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Division, we remain unconvinced of the positions advocated by the authors.”

No matter the discipline, reporting on technical issues for a mass audience is fraught with pitfalls. To make the subject understandable to the layperson, authors make generous use of analogies, which are inherently incomplete and tenuous, like a stone house being built on swampland.

Likewise, in an effort to garner as many clicks or views as possible, reporters and news outlets will often resort to sensationalism, making the news being reported more dramatic than it is. (To be fair, those supplying the news can also be guilty of sensationalism in their hunger for media coverage.)