My only beef with this guy's article, but it's a big beef, is that he used AP's unnamed expert. I didn't like or trust it when AP did it, and Prine shouldn't have used the non-information here.
used=quoted.
It seems that many of you didn't read the original article, and that is why you have some questions.
This is a follow up article.
I highly recommend reading the original at:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_128200.html The history was that this journalist, Carl Prine broke the original story, and it took a day or so, before the rest of the media picked it up.
As for the UN seals, after the original article got some exposure in other media, some news articles appeared quoting "an unnamed person, who spoke on condition of anonimity" , who was NOT speaking in any official capacity, and claimed that "it is most likely nothing new and the marines probably just broke the UN seals on some "known" uranium". Of course there was this little problem that the UN inspectors apparently never even found some of the places the Marines found.
So basically, as far as I can see and this article and the original one describes, it sounds like, sure there were some known materials here,(and maybe the locals broke the seals on those, maybe not) but also some major NEW find of nuclear material, which may be weapons grade plutonium.
In fact, I think Carl Prine wrote this follow up article to "gently" debunk that UN seal story. That whether or not those seals were broken, there sure seems like there is MUCH more there, than what the UN was aware of.