"A journalist doesn't have any interest not to engage in sensationalism."

Yes. Lazy shorthand in my last lw post, apologies. I should have said something along the lines of "in order to clarify our concerns , and not give the journalist the honest impression we though these things all represented imminent doom, which might result in sensationalist coverage" - as in, sensationalism resulting from misunderstanding. If the journalist chooses deliberately to engage in sensationalism, that's a slightly different thing - and yes, it sells newspapers.

"Editors want to write articles that the average person understands. It's their job to simplify. That still has a good chance of leaving the readers more informed than they were before reading the article."

Yes. I merely get concerned when "scientists think we need to learn more about this, and recommend use of the precautionary principle before engaging" gets simplified to "scientists say 'don't do this", as in that case it's not clear to me that readers come away with a better understanding of the issue. There's a lot of misunderstanding of science due to simplified reporting. Anders Sandberg and Avi Roy have a good article on this in health (as do others): http://theconversation.com/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-health-and-science-reporting-21130

"It's not the kind of article that I would sent people who have an background and who approach you. On the other hand it's quite fine for the average person."

Thanks, helpful.