I picked uranium because it's sufficiently scary to most people, not because it's special - you can say the same thing about any (stable) artificial particle to

I picked uranium because it's sufficiently scary to most people, not because it's special - you can say the same thing about any (stable) artificial particle too. My point was that without talking numerically about real-world impacts, this article has no meaningful content. To clarify, you should absolutely be concerned about this particular category of particles - the impacts are not fully understood, but they are substantial and meaningful. I'm just railing against the consistent failures of modern scientific 'journalism'.