How risky are Israel's strikes for nuclear contamination in Iran?

India Today

6 hours ago

Tensions escalated in the Middle East as Israel continues its military campaign against Iran. While Israel claims that its goal is to put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and environmental, human risks are increasing from attacks on nuclear facilities. Till now, experts have stated the risk of nuclear contamination is low -- but the fear of disaster is real.advertisementAccording to news agency Reuters, the alarm reached a new peak when the Israeli military struck Bushehr, Iran's only operational nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast. Israel later clarified that they mistakenly made the announcement and Bushehr was not actually hit.WHAT HAS BEEN TARGETED?Israel has confirmed strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites, including Natanz, Isfahan, Arak, and parts of Tehran, Reuters reported. These locations are all linked to Iran's nuclear program. While Iran has been saying that its nuclear enrichment programme is for peaceful purposes, Israel and the US say program is intended to develop nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified damage at multiple sites. This includes the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a nuclear complex in Isfahan, and centrifuge production centres in Karaj and Tehran.advertisementOne key target, on Thursday, was Arak, also known as Khondab, where a heavy-water research reactor is located. This type of reactor can potentially produce plutonium, which can be used as an alternate material used in nuclear weapons. The IAEA confirmed that this reactor had been hit but retaliated that it was not operational at the time and there were no signs of radiation release.LOW RADIATION RISK SO FARDespite the attacks, experts currently believe the danger of nuclear fallout has been minimal.Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection and nuclear energy policy, said that while these strikes raise serious concerns, they haven't resulted in a release of radioactive material. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. He added that uranium in low concentrations is only harmful if it enters the body through inhalation or ingestion.Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), pointed out that many of the facilities targeted are part of the early stages of the nuclear fuel process. This means that the risk is more chemical than radioactive.She also noted that weather conditions play a crucial role in how any leaked material might spread. "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," she said. Since many of Iran's nuclear sites are underground, the possibility of dispersal is lower.advertisementThe attacks on enrichment facilities carry limited fallout risks; experts are more worried about the potential consequences of a strike on a nuclear reactor—particularly the one at Bushehr.Richard Wakeford, an honorary professor at the University of Manchester, said that enrichment facility damage is largely a "chemical problem," but an attack on a functioning power reactor could lead to the release of large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere or sea.James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned that hitting the Bushehr plant "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe." However, he noted that so far, Israel's strikes on other sites have "virtually no radiological consequences." He added, "Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor, it is barely radioactive. The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances."advertisementGULF STATES FEAR OF THEIR WATER SUPPLYFor countries who share borders in the Gulf region, the fear is increasing day by day -- not only because of the radiation threat, but because of what it could mean for their water supply. Many of these nations are dependent almost entirely on seawater desalination to meet their drinking water needs.The United Arab Emirates gets more than 80% of its drinking water from desalinated sources. Bahrain has been fully reliant on desalinated water since 2016, and Qatar also depends entirely on it. Even Saudi Arabia, which has larger natural groundwater reserves, still gets around half its water from desalination, according to recent statistics.These desalination plants sit along the Gulf coast -- close to where a potential nuclear incident could occur. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE have access to both the Gulf and other bodies of water, giving them some backup options. But others -- like Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait -- have no other coastline to fall back on."If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Centre.With inputs from ReutersMust Watch