Latest news with #radiation
Wall Street Journal
13 hours ago
- Science
- Wall Street Journal
The Sun's Fiery South Pole Is Revealed for the First Time
For the first time ever, a spacecraft has snapped images of the sun's south pole. These swirling gold-and-black views of the fiery ball of gas are key to understanding the solar magnetic storms that can block communications on Earth, create vivid displays of northern lights and threaten astronauts with radiation exposure.
The National
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
The Israel-Iran war has reintroduced nuclear disaster into the global conversation
In less than two months, the world will mark 80 years since the atom bomb was used in warfare for the first – and hopefully last – time. The American devices that were detonated above the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused incalculable human suffering, cutting short more than 200,000 lives. That demonstration of catastrophic power revealed the risks inherent in nuclear technology. As the war between Israel and Iran continues to escalate, it is deeply worrying to see how talk of radiation leaks and lasting environmental damage has re-entered the global conversation. Although Israel's unilateral strikes have done considerable damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, there are no confirmed reports of radioactive material escaping confinement. Nevertheless, it is not alarmist to argue that one reckless strike has the potential to endanger many lives. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, said as much on Monday, stating that military escalation 'increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment'. Several Middle East countries are already taking action, with Iraq's National Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical and Biological Regulatory Authority leading discussions this week about establishing a joint operations room to respond to potential radiation leaks from Iranian nuclear facilities. As alarming as these developments are, the global community has been here before and has shown that there are ways to prevent warring parties from making a dangerous nuclear misstep. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine, which was damaged in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, is currently under Russian military control but is inspected by the IAEA, which acts as a vital intermediary in assessing the plant's safety. This is a complex and often difficult process but one that shows the indispensability of international involvement in establishing nuclear safety, even in war zones. Such guardrails appear to be absent in the Israel-Iran crisis. As missiles rain down on Israeli and Iranian cities, the risk to civilian lives and health from a misjudged strike on a nuclear facility is profound. Iran's people are particularly vulnerable, given Tehran's underinvestment in civilian shelters and warning systems. International bodies such as the UN and its Security Council need to prove their relevance quickly. The price of inaction is too great to contemplate The stakes continue to rise. Israel on Thursday claimed to have targeted Iran's Arak nuclear reactor and hit what it said was a nuclear weapons development site in the area of Natanz. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has yet to rule out direct American involvement in the conflict, something that could conceivably result in 13,000kg bombs being dropped on fortified Iranian nuclear sites. Given the precariousness of the situation and the collective price people across this region and beyond could pay in the event of a leak, a meltdown or nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, the world needs to see a more effective response from its leading international institutions. Bodies such as the UN and its Security Council need to prove their relevance quickly; the price of inaction is too great to contemplate.
The Independent
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Fact Focus: Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites pose limited radiation risks
With Israel intensifying its attacks on Iran 's nuclear program, and President Donald Trump hinting the U.S. might join the effort, here is what we know about the radiation threat, and other health risks. No elevated radiation levels detected yet Iran enriches uranium at two key sites, Natanz and Fordo. The Islamic Republic's leaders say their nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of harnessing atomic energy. But highly enriched uranium — which is radioactive — is used in the manufacture of atomic weapons, and Israel is determined to prevent Iran from having them. At Natanz, some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, uranium had been enriched to up to 60% purity — a mildly radioactive level and a short step away from weapons grade — before Israel destroyed the aboveground part of the facility, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Another part of the Natanz facility is below ground, and where most of its centrifuges are to protect them from airstrikes. The IAEA said Tuesday it believes that most if not all of these centrifuges were destroyed by an Israeli strike that cut off power to the site. These centrifuges had been enriching up to 5% purity, according to experts. While radiological and chemical contamination are likely inside Natanz, radiation levels outside the complex remain normal, Rafael Grossi, chief of the IAEA, said during an urgent session of the IAEA board on June 16. The Fordo nuclear enrichment site is buried deep below a mountain, around 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran, and is close to the Shiite holy city of Qom. Iran produces most of its near weapons-grade material there — and for that reason it is considered a high-value target for the Israelis. But its location deep underground makes it difficult to attack, which is why the U.S. is considering deploying powerful 'bunker buster' bombs to destroy Fordo. Even so, experts said any potential radiation impact from a strike on Fordo is likely to be similar to the impact at Natanz. In short, there would be some chemical hazards on site, and some radiation, but at levels that would be manageable with respiratory devices and other protective gear. Last week, Israel struck four buildings at the Isfahan nuclear site, among them a uranium conversion facility. The IAEA said there has been no sign of increased radiation at Isfahan, which is roughly 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran. Risk from uranium is minimal Even if radiation did leak from either Natanz or Fordo, experts said, the amount would be unlikely to pose a risk to people near the facilities or in the wider region. 'Very little uranium will be released in these kind of attacks,' said David Albright, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert who founded the Institute for Science and International Security, based in Washington. Uranium itself is not especially toxic, he said, and is common in parts of the environment. A person standing near an enrichment facility with a leak would probably be exposed to no more radiation than someone who took several trans-Atlantic flights, which receive slightly higher radiation because radiation doses are larger at high altitudes, he said. In order to become sick, someone would have to ingest large quantities of uranium, Albright said, pointing out that the element can be found naturally in seawater and the earth's crust. A chemical used in uranium enrichment could be a threat Rather than radiation, experts said the greater risk from any attack on nuclear enrichment sites might be from fluorine gas. Fluorine is mixed with a concentrated form of uranium to create uranium hexafluoride, which is then fed into centrifuges. Fluorine is extremely volatile, will quickly corrode and can burn the skin. It is especially deadly if inhaled. A far greater concern to the public would be if Israel were to attack Iran's only nuclear power plant, said Fabian Hinz of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. In a nuclear power plant, the reactor core and the spent nuclear fuel are the most radioactive components. Some of it remains dangerous for thousands of years. The Bushehr power plant is 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. But 'it seems very unlikely that the Israelis are going to strike' Bushehr, Hinz said, because it isn't considered to be part of the Iranian nuclear program geared toward developing weapons. ___ —- The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. —-
Associated Press
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Fact Focus: Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites pose limited radiation risks
With Israel intensifying its attacks on Iran's nuclear program, and President Donald Trump hinting the U.S. might join the effort, here is what we know about the radiation threat, and other health risks. No elevated radiation levels detected yetIran enriches uranium at two key sites, Natanz and Fordo. The Islamic Republic's leaders say their nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of harnessing atomic energy. But highly enriched uranium — which is radioactive — is used in the manufacture of atomic weapons, and Israel is determined to prevent Iran from having them. At Natanz, some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, uranium had been enriched to up to 60% purity — a mildly radioactive level and a short step away from weapons grade — before Israel destroyed the aboveground part of the facility, according to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Another part of the Natanz facility is below ground, and where most of its centrifuges are to protect them from airstrikes. The IAEA said Tuesday it believes that most if not all of these centrifuges were destroyed by an Israeli strike that cut off power to the site. These centrifuges had been enriching up to 5% purity, according to experts. While radiological and chemical contamination are likely inside Natanz, radiation levels outside the complex remain normal, Rafael Grossi, chief of the IAEA, said during an urgent session of the IAEA board on June 16. The Fordo nuclear enrichment site is buried deep below a mountain, around 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran, and is close to the Shiite holy city of Qom. Iran produces most of its near weapons-grade material there — and for that reason it is considered a high-value target for the Israelis. But its location deep underground makes it difficult to attack, which is why the U.S. is considering deploying powerful 'bunker buster' bombs to destroy Fordo. Even so, experts said any potential radiation impact from a strike on Fordo is likely to be similar to the impact at Natanz. In short, there would be some chemical hazards on site, and some radiation, but at levels that would be manageable with respiratory devices and other protective gear. Last week, Israel struck four buildings at the Isfahan nuclear site, among them a uranium conversion facility. The IAEA said there has been no sign of increased radiation at Isfahan, which is roughly 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran. Risk from uranium is minimal Even if radiation did leak from either Natanz or Fordo, experts said, the amount would be unlikely to pose a risk to people near the facilities or in the wider region. 'Very little uranium will be released in these kind of attacks,' said David Albright, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert who founded the Institute for Science and International Security, based in Washington. Uranium itself is not especially toxic, he said, and is common in parts of the environment. A person standing near an enrichment facility with a leak would probably be exposed to no more radiation than someone who took several trans-Atlantic flights, which receive slightly higher radiation because radiation doses are larger at high altitudes, he said. In order to become sick, someone would have to ingest large quantities of uranium, Albright said, pointing out that the element can be found naturally in seawater and the earth's crust. A chemical used in uranium enrichment could be a threat Rather than radiation, experts said the greater risk from any attack on nuclear enrichment sites might be from fluorine gas. Fluorine is mixed with a concentrated form of uranium to create uranium hexafluoride, which is then fed into centrifuges. Fluorine is extremely volatile, will quickly corrode and can burn the skin. It is especially deadly if inhaled. A far greater concern to the public would be if Israel were to attack Iran's only nuclear power plant, said Fabian Hinz of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. In a nuclear power plant, the reactor core and the spent nuclear fuel are the most radioactive components. Some of it remains dangerous for thousands of years. The Bushehr power plant is 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. But 'it seems very unlikely that the Israelis are going to strike' Bushehr, Hinz said, because it isn't considered to be part of the Iranian nuclear program geared toward developing weapons. ___ Mroue reported from Beirut. Liechtenstein reported from Vienna. —- The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. —- Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
LBCI
a day ago
- Politics
- LBCI
Potential nuclear risk: Could Israel's Dimona radiation reach Lebanon if targeted?
Report by Petra Abou Haidar, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi As tensions escalate in the region, one question looms large: what happens if Israel's Dimona nuclear facility is targeted, which lies approximately 400 to 600 kilometers from Lebanon? Situated in the Negev desert, Dimona is widely believed to house a nuclear reactor, though Israel has never officially confirmed its exact nature or capabilities. According to international reports, it is classified as a power-generating nuclear reactor. A strike on such a facility could lead to radioactive leakage, potentially spreading beyond Israel's borders depending on wind direction and atmospheric conditions. Can radiation reach Lebanon in this case? While there is no way to definitively predict the extent of contamination in the event of a strike, the scale of radiation leakage and prevailing weather patterns would be determining factors. Crucially, Israel remains tight-lipped about the materials and exact functions of the site. In Lebanon, the body responsible for responding to such emergencies is the Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission. Established in 1995 with support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Lebanon's National Council for Scientific Research, the commission is responsible for monitoring radiation levels and implementing emergency measures as necessary. Should radiation be detected, protocols would involve analyzing air quality and assessing levels of radioactive spread before activating appropriate response plans. Although public anxiety is understandable, Lebanese experts urge against panic. They caution that fear-mongering—especially through social media ads promoting the so-called "comprehensive nuclear protection fund"—only fuels misinformation.
