As well they shouldn't. "Jveritas" is correct that the more important tidbit in the article is the "tantalum coated graphite". Tantalum is a very difficult material to work with, yet highly corrosion resistant. Graphite, OTOH is relatively cheap, abundant, and easy to work with. Coating graphite with tantalum potentially offers a short-cut route to piping for handling corrosive gas.
The "neutron generator" is simply an isotopic neutron source that uses the high-energy alpha particles emitted by many isotopes (including naturally occuring ones) to slam into a beryllium "target". When such a high-energy collision occurs, you get (as I recall) the formation of Lithium nuclei, and the emission of a free neutron, which can then be used for many experimental purposes. Commerical sources of this type typically use either Americium or Plutonium (note--NOT the fissionable plutonium isotope), as they put out a higher alpha particle flux.
Tantalum coated graphite isn't only used in uranium processing. It is used in any process where you don't want to diffuse graphite into some process you are working (molten metal or certain corrosive gases). Obviously it applies to uranium processing, but that isn't the only thing.
Additionally, people are getting too upset about the neutron source. It really isn't a big deal. It really isn't practical to make a powerful neutron flux outside of a nuclear reactor. These 'Highly Radioactive' neutron sources are no doubt trivial by comparison, and by physics. If I recall correctly it takes something like a hundred thousand alpha decays to yield ~50 neutrons (for an Am-Be neutron source). Not a particularly efficient process. Even the tiniest nuclear reactor would blow away the largest Am-Be source (or any other alpha-Be neutron source) by many many orders of magnitude.
The media SHOULD be paying attention: a neutron generator+a highly radioactive "source"+Tantalum coated graphite=nothing short of bomb building.