U.S. government accidentally posts nuclear sites online

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Perhaps more damning than unflattering personal photos, the government mistakenly posted a large document detailing public and private nuclear research sites and programs on the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site, reports the Associated Press. Government sources say that the information doesn't pose a national security risk.

The 266-page report included information labeled as "highly confidential safeguards sensitive," but, National Nuclear Security Administration spokesperson Damien LaVera said in a statement, "no information of direct national security significance would be compromised." The document had been revised by President Obama for Congress to review, and The New York Times reports, neither the Government Printing Office or the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (to whom publication was attributed on the report's cover) have been able to explain the error.

What was on the list that shouldn't have been? Highly enriched weapon-grade uranium (Tennessee), nuclear sites (Washington State) and nuclear reactors—made to study nuclear facility accidents (Pittsburgh).

For any curious surfers, the report has since been taken down, but much of the information it contained, such as the locations and details of the country's 103 nuclear power plants, is already publicly available.

Government Printing Office logo courtesy of GPO via Wikimedia Commons

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe