US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities won't lead to another Chernobyl: experts
The US launched devastating strikes that 'obliterated' Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday night — but don't expect another Chernobyl, experts said.
President Trump ordered strikes on three nuclear sites inside Iran, where International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found uranium purified to near weapons grade.
Bunker-buster bombs are believed to have wiped out the Fordow facility, while 30 Tomahawk missiles fired from submarines 400 miles away struck Natanz and Isfahan.
Advertisement
But the hits on Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow — Iran's most secure nuclear enrichment facility, which was buried 300 feet inside a mountain — shouldn't spark panic over possible nuclear fallout.
Experts in radiation hazards say there is little risk of widespread contamination such as what took place on April 26, 1986, when an infamous power surge and subsequent fire at Russia's Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant released massive amounts of deadly radiation into the air, killing 31 and causing widespread contamination and long-term health impacts.
3 President Trump addressed the nation Saturday after unleashing airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Reuters
Advertisement
Chernobyl is widely considered the worst nuclear disaster in world history.
'This isn't a Chernobyl scenario,' author Aimen Dean posted to X.
'So, in layman's terms: this isn't 'hot' nuclear fuel undergoing fission,' he wrote. 'It's uranium in various stages of enrichment, and even a military strike that destroys centrifuges or disperses material is unlikely to produce a large-scale, long-lasting fallout event.
The US targeted enrichment facilities — not nuclear reactors — deep within Iran, buffered by mountains in the north and the Caspian Sea in the Northeast, so 'there may be localized contamination, but not a region-wide radiological disaster.'
Advertisement
'There's no fallout threat from this because it's all underneath,' according to Atlantic Council's Alex Plitsas.
'The president just prevented World War III with this decisive action. This is the 'strength' in 'peace through strength' boldly shown to the world at last.'
3 Iran's Ishafan facility was one of three hit by American airstrikes.
Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images
The nature of the material in Iran is a key reason a nuclear fallout-type event is unlikely.
Advertisement
'With uranium … the radiation doesn't really travel very far,' Prof Claire Corkhill, chair in Mineralogy and Radioactive Waste Management at the University of Bristol, told the BBC.
Uranium's toxicity would wreak havoc on the human body if it were ingested, or if the particles from the dangerous substances were inhaled — meaning those close to the site of the bombings could face some health risks, she noted.
But another expert insisted that while there might be impacts in a 'very local area,' the bombing shouldn't create 'a massive environmental fallout.'
'If there was an incident and the centrifuges were to release the uranium hexafluoride, the gas contained within the centrifuges, then it would be a really severe chemical incident,' Prof Simon Middleburgh, a nuclear materials scientist from Bangor University, told the outlet.
Iran's uranium was well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon, according to the IAEA.
3 Natanz was another facility struck Saturday night.
Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies/AFP via Getty Images
But blasting a rocket into stockpiles of enriched uranium would not pose risk of a 'nuclear incident.'
Advertisement
'Highly enriched uranium is about three times more radioactive than non-enriched uranium,' said Prof. Jim Smith, from the University of Portsmouth, who has studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. 'But … neither of them are particularly densely radioactive.
'It wouldn't cause a major environmental contamination problem.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Vance: ‘No interest in boots on the ground' — but bracing for poss. sleeper-cell attacks in US
Vice President JD Vance on Sunday insisted the US has no interest in putting boots on the ground in Iran — while admitting the administration is bracing for potential terror attacks from sleeper cells in America. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground,' he said. 'We didn't blow up diplomacy. 'We only took this action when it was clear, as the president said, that the Iranians were tapping us along,' the vice president said of the US strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday. 'The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance if they're serious about it. I guarantee you, the president of the United States is,' Vance said. 4 Vice President JD Vance on Sunday warns Iran against retaliation. NBC 4 The Pentagon laid out a timeline for how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' unfolded against Iran on Saturday. Dept of Defense The vice president insisted Iran's network of terrorist proxies in the region is already washed up, as is its nuclear program, though comprehensive damage assessments haven't been finished. After announcing the successful military campaign late Saturday, Trump dramatically warned that any retaliation from Iran 'will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed' during the strikes on its Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites. Vance reiterated that warning and underscored that 'it would be the stupidest thing in the world if they' seek retribution. He also indicated that the US has been battening down the hatches just in case. 'We're, of course, doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. I think that we're prepared in the event that the Iranians do retaliate,' Vance said — before later warning about possible sleeper cells in the US. 'Unfortunately, we know that a lot of people who we don't have full accounting of were let in over the last four years under the Biden administration,' Vance said. Also among the fears of reciprocation from Iran is that Tehran could target US bases and other military assets in the Mideast or close off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which about 20% to 25% of the world's oil consumption flows. 4 Vance joined President Trump in the Situation Room to monitor the strikes Saturday. The White House/X Vance said it would be 'suicidal' for Iran to try to shut the strait, particularly given the havoc that would wreak on its already beleaguered economy. But he reiterated that 'our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons.' Vance, throughout his tenure as an elected official, has staked out a staunch anti-war position. He had long been skeptical of protracted US aid to war-torn Ukraine. In March, a leaked Signal message chat revealed that he was privately apprehensive about Trump's strike against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite that, Vance was adamant Sunday that Trump is being prudent with his use of military force and that preventing Iran's theocratic regime from obtaining a nuke is within America's core interests. 'The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did what he did: a very precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest,' Vance said. 'I don't fear that this is going to become a protracted conflict because I think that we have a president who knows what's in America's interest.' The vice president also juxtaposed Trump's use of military action against Iran with how past presidents have dealt with conflicts in the tumultuous region. 4 Top military officials are still assessing the damage done to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and other facilities. MAXAR Technologies 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he stressed. 'I understand the concern. But the difference is that back then we had a dumb president.' Shortly after news of the strikes broke, a chorus of Democrats called for Trump to be impeached, accusing him of exceeding his military authority. Even some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), called the airstrikes unconstitutional. Vance, a former Ohio senator, shrugged off those concerns and stressed that 'the president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the House and Senate intelligence committees that the US intelligence community assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She later accused the media of misconstruing her words. 'They were way too close to a nuclear weapon for the comfort of the president of the United States, which is why he took this action,' Vance said of the Iranians. 'We had a narrow window of opportunity. 'We might not have been able to carry out this attack six months down the road,' he added. 'It would have been irresponsible, I think, for the president not to take the action that he did. 'What happens next is up to the Iranians,' Vance assessed at another point in the interview.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump touts ‘great unity' in GOP after Iran strikes, pushes to get ‘big, beautiful' bill done
President Trump touted the 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, as he called on the party to focus on getting his agenda bill through to his desk. 'Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday. 'Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done. Our Country is doing GREAT. MAGA!' he added. The president's remarks come after he announced Saturday evening that U.S. forces bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said to Iran in a social media post, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' The bombs targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. The bombings put the U.S. directly in Iran's crosshairs for retaliation and made it an active participant in the Mideastern war, which Israel launched with airstrikes against Iran on June 13. Ahead of the strikes, news outlets had focused on the so-called 'civil war' in the GOP, between the pro-Israel foreign policy hawks and supporters who identified more with the 'America-First' agenda. Members of both groups had been publicly lobbying the president in opposite directions as he considered taking military actions against Iran. While some anti-interventionist Republicans—including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—still publicly criticized the strikes, most of the GOP expressed support following the announcement. The news also comes as the Senate enters a pivotal week for the president's massive agenda bill, which Republican leaders in Congress still say they hope to get done by July 4.
Wall Street Journal
36 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Standards Slip at Fort Bragg
'On Display at D.C.'s Parade: Tanks, Drones and the Military's Identity Crisis' (Review, June 14) cites President Trump's speech at Fort Bragg in which he used a group of soldiers as stage props in a piece of political theater. The authors refer to it as 'a breach of traditional decorum.' I believe it is an egregious violation of U.S. military standards of conduct. Our armed forces have sedulously separated themselves from partisan politics—and soldiers on duty, in uniform, booing or cheering remarks in a blatantly political speech are acting in contravention to those standards. One might note that politicians don't campaign on military installations; nor should they. That a politician would use soldiers in this way is profoundly disrespectful to the Constitution and to the troops who are sworn to defend it. It appears that refresher training in standards of conduct would be in order at Fort Bragg. Moreover, someone might inform the president of what type of speech or behavior is appropriate for uniformed military audiences.
