Scientific American Ask the Experts October    This column is neither peer reviewed nor secondary and is therefore not a reliable source It is merely a collection of the brief personal opinions from a variety of researchers none of whom have any apparent familiarity with the subject Unreviewed personal opinions are less reliable than news stories But this source Schaffer  Schaffer and Morrison  etc is used no less than twenty times in the article to support absolutist statements such as there are no theoretical explanations for how such elemental transmutations could occur and the provided evidence is not strong enough to overthrow standard nuclear physics Are there any reason that this source and the statements attributed to it should not be removed from the article