Potentially a great and fascinating story but the editors at Scientific American must have forgotten the editing bit. The feature meanders with constantly changing emphasis from personal inquiry to the fundamentally scientific which makes for difficult reading. To make the narrative work it needs more details in some areas and less in others.

I found the transition from the description of what the researchers found to their conclusions very difficult to follow, so I assume that those with less background in the sciences would be taking a lot on faith - not a good way to deal with science.

The idea of naturally occurring nuclear reactors is a fascinating idea, and this article tells the story quite well. I do recall having read of this in some previous article. Meshik mentions some previous conferences and studies, but it seems more credit and referencing could have been provided for previous articles.

Great story. What? It's Scientific American? No wonder it's a great story. Should be read by everyone again and again until they understand it.

It provides a story that educates readers about how nuclear fission works