I guess now would be an apt time for NYT to revisit its abominable Mercer-sponsored reporting on the Uranium One deal.
For more on that, it’s worth your time to listen to this careful explanation. itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/arm…
This part of NYT's article today is flatly false, and deserves to be corrected. 
The Washington Post's @GlennKesslerWP has addressed this false claim repeatedly, yet it persists. washingtonpost.com/news/fact-chec…
The Uranium One deal concerned only corporate control of a Canadian company which owns a tiny uranium mining interest in the US. It did not involve any physical transfers of uranium.
The small amount of uranium that company produces in the US does not amount to an appreciable portion of "the United States' uranium."
Students of the Cold War may remember that the United States has already taken a substantial amount of uranium out of the ground.
Students of more recent history may remember that the US fairly recently imported a lot of uranium FROM RUSSIA. nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pres…
The US has a lot of uranium, and Russia hasn't "acquire[d] much" of it. Even the small amount this mine produces can't be exported w/o a license.
NYT’s second try still isn’t right. No uranium changed hands. What was sold was equity in a Canadian mining company. newsdiffs.org/diff/1539131/1…
