Nuclear Contamination Risks from Israel's Attacks on Iran
Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear installations so far pose only limited risks of contamination, experts say. But they warn that any attack on the country's nuclear power station at Bushehr could cause a nuclear disaster.
Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil.
Fears of catastrophe rippled through the region on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to say later that the announcement was a mistake.
What Has Israel Hit So Far?
Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one.
The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran.
Israel has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab.
The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water. The IAEA said that it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects.
In an update of its assessment on Friday, the IAEA said key buildings at the site were damaged. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom bomb.
What Risks Do These Strikes Pose?
Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specializes in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far.
He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported.
'The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that,' he said. 'Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments,' he said, according to Reuters.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks.
At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. 'When UF6 interacts with water vapor in the air, it produces harmful chemicals,' she said.
The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including the weather, she added. 'In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely.'
The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities.
Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in the UK, said risks to the environment were minimal if Israel hits subterranean facilities because you are 'burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tons of concrete, earth and rock.'
What About Nuclear Reactors?
The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be 'mainly a chemical problem' for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors 'is a different story.'
Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added.
James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr 'could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe,' but that attacks on enrichment facilities were 'unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences.'
Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. 'The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil,' he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign.
Bennett of the University of Leicester said it would be 'foolhardy for the Israelis to attack' Bushehr because they could pierce the reactor, which would mean releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
36 minutes ago
- Arab News
Israel vs. Iran: Why Riyadh is committed to de-escalation
As anyone who has followed the recent statements coming out of the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs will tell you, the Kingdom has made its stance regarding the recent regional tensions unequivocally clear: The current aggression against Iran is not only unacceptable, but also a dangerous provocation that threatens the stability of the entire Middle East. It is important for observers to note that Saudi Arabia today views Iran not as an adversary, but as a fellow Muslim nation facing a grave and unjustified assault. In condemning this attack as a blatant violation of international norms, Riyadh has voiced strong solidarity with the Iranian people, rejecting any breach of their sovereignty. This principled position reflects the Kingdom's long-standing belief in non-intervention and mutual respect among nations. What is particularly alarming is the apparent objective behind the timing of these hostilities: to derail sensitive negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Saudi Arabia sees this as a calculated move to sabotage dialogue that could de-escalate one of the region's most intractable challenges — the Iranian nuclear file. Since the landmark Beijing agreement in March 2023, Saudi-Iranian relations have, slowly but surely, entered a promising new chapter. While it is true that previous hostilities could not easily be forgotten, trust-building measures have been gradually taking root, with bilateral committees working across various domains to ensure differences do not escalate unchecked. This fragile progress — and the greater idea of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East — is precisely what stands to be lost if the drums of war drown out diplomatic momentum. Riyadh has also emphasized that regional stability hinges on stronger cooperation among Muslim nations. Under the umbrella of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Kingdom believes in the potential for a united front that can foster peace and development, so long as intentions are sincere and not clouded by geopolitical ambitions. The current aggression is not only unacceptable, but also a dangerous provocation. Faisal J. Abbas | Editor-in-Chief In a flurry of diplomatic engagement, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been on the phone with world leaders, all the way from Washington to London to the Far East, calling for collective action to halt what could possibly be a regional disaster. He has also spoken directly with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, underscoring Saudi Arabia's commitment to de-escalation and its willingness to mediate. This leadership extends beyond political gestures. On the ground, the Kingdom provided shelter, medical care, and transportation to over 70,000 Iranian pilgrims stranded in Saudi Arabia due to the conflict. Acting on the crown prince's directive, the Kingdom funded their stay and coordinated their safe return home — a humanitarian move reflecting the values Saudi Arabia consistently upholds. Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan has been tirelessly engaging with global counterparts, rallying support for a ceasefire and meeting directly with his Iranian counterpart to explore diplomatic solutions. Notably, Riyadh had urged Tehran — well before the outbreak of hostilities — to engage with Washington's final offer seriously, warning that the US stance on the nuclear issue should not be underestimated. Looking forward, should Iran face humanitarian challenges in the aftermath of this crisis, there is no doubt that the Kingdom will be among the first to offer aid. This is not merely altruism — it is a strategic and moral imperative rooted in the belief that the well-being of neighboring nations affects the collective fate of the region. Crucially, Saudi Arabia has drawn a firm line: No belligerent party will be permitted to use its airspace, land, or waters. Riyadh's neutrality is active, not passive — it is deliberate, disciplined, and unwavering in its commitment to de-escalation. Needless to say, the deliberate targeting of civilians, bombing of media outlets and hospitals, and threats to the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader are condemnable and appalling; but by continuing to accept them we risk normalizing unacceptable war crimes. Hopefully, there will be some adults in decision-making rooms around the world who will agree that this escalation needs to stop before we reach the point of no return.
Leaders
44 minutes ago
- Leaders
Netanyahu Uses Iran Conflict to Stay in Office Forever: Former US President Clinton
Former US President Bill Clinton said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was using war against Iran as a way to stay in power for good, according to Arab News. 'Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever and ever. I mean, he's been there most of the last 20 years,' Clinton stated during an appearance on 'The Daily Show'. Clinton also said he urged US President Donald Trump to 'defuse' the ongoing war between Israel and Iran and put an end to the 'outright constant killing of civilians.' In the same context, he mentioned that he did not believe that either Netanyahu or Trump want to create a full-scale regional war. Apart from this, he noted that it is significant for the US to protect its allies but at the same time he called for restraint. 'We have to convince our friends in the Middle East that we'll stand with them and try to protect them,' he stated. Moreover, he underscored that embarking on undeclared wars that primarily destroy civilians 'is not a very good solution.' Importantly, Clinton stated that the US has stayed out of direct intervention in the Israeli Iranian tensions. However, it has provided Israel with military equipment and helped it intercept missiles from Tehran. Related Topics: Iran-Israel Conflict Enters 2nd Week with Dim Prospects for Diplomacy Iraqi Cities Protest against Israel's War on Iran US Military Aircrafts Vanish from Qatar Base Amid Iran Tensions Short link : Post Views: 174 Related Stories
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Five army personnel killed in Israeli attack on Iran's west: Media
An Israeli attack on Saturday in Iran's west killed at least five army personnel and wounded nine others, Iranian media reported. 'Five army officers were killed and nine others were wounded in today's attack by the Israeli regime on the western city of Sumar' in Kermanshah province, the Fars news agency reported, quoting a provincial official.
