Anthropogenic natural uranium is NOT a contradiction in terms. This has to do with the isotopic content of the uranium in question, not whether it just came out of the ground. Natural uranium does not equal uranium ore. One can chemically process uranium ore and still retain its natural isotopic content. The term "natural" is used in contrast with its opposite: enriched. Natural uranium contains less than 1% U-235 which is the main fissile isotope of uranium; the rest is mostly U-238. Uranium with this isotopic make-up is considered "natural uranium." So for example, when reactors use natural uranium fuel, the fuel has been chemically processed (anthropogenic) and fabricated into fuel rods. The opposite would be to assume that all one has to do is shovel some uranium ore into the reactor and flip the switch.

Mr Prather, I know that this is a hot-button issue and therefore as a blogger or journalist you feel compelled to write about it. But you would do well, and maintain credibility by doing research into what these things actually mean. The nuclear industry, as well as the IAEA, has always distinguished between natural uranium and uranium ore. It is a matter of operational terminology. Furthermore, it's interesting that you're surprised that these Director General reports were "somehow obtained" by Broad and Sanger. Check the history of these reports and you will see that world-wide public availability has become the rule, it is not the exception. Best of luck in future reporting.