Israel is targeting Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment plants. Here are the contamination risks
Israel has been targeting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it has described as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), five nuclear facilities have been struck, sparking fears the air strikes could raise health risks across the region.
Here's what damage has been caused so far and the safety risks of attacking nuclear sites.
Several military and nuclear sites in Iran.
Israel says the attacks are to block Iran from developing atomic weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operations were to "strike the head of Iran's nuclear weaponization program".
Iran denies ever having pursued a plan to build nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It says the nuclear sites it does have are for peaceful purposes.
If Israel continues attacking Iran until it removes the country's nuclear capability, destroying the Fordow enrichment plant is central to its plan.
While another important facility, Natanz, has been hit, the Fordow site would be much harder to target.
This is because it's located inside a mountain, 90-metres underground and can only be reached by American "bunker-buster" bombs, which Israel does not possess.
Because Israel believes Iran is enriching uranium to levels that could allow it to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Islamic Republic's claims its nuclear work is for "peaceful purposes".
Enriched uranium, specifically uranium-235, is an essential component in many nuclear weapons.
"When you dig uranium out of the ground, 99.3 per cent of it is uranium-238, and 0.7 per cent of it is uranium-235," Kaitlin Cook says, a nuclear physicist at the Australian National University.
"The numbers 238 and 235 relate to its weight — uranium-235 is slightly lighter than uranium-238."
To enrich uranium, basically means increasing the proportion of uranium-235, while removing the uranium-238.
This is typically done with a centrifuge, a kind of "scientific salad spinner" which rotates uranium thousands of times a minute, separating the lighter uranium-235 from the base uranium.
For civilian nuclear power, Dr Cook says uranium-235 is usually enriched to about 3 to 5 per cent.
But once uranium is enriched to 90 per cent, it is deemed weapons-grade.
According to the IAEA, Iran's uranium has reached about 60 per cent enrichment, well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon.
Dr Cook says the process for enriching uranium from 60 per cent to weapons-grade is much easier than it is to get to the initial 60 per cent. That's because there's less uranium-238 to get rid of.
According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.
In the hours after Israel attacked Iran last Friday, Netanyahu said Iran was just days away from being able to build nuclear weapons.
In a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Iran has all it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon.
"It would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would, of course, pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world."
But there has been some back and forth between US authorities on whether Iran was really that close to producing nuclear weapons.
In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told members of Congress that Iran was not moving towards building nuclear weapons.
"The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003," she said.
On Air Force One on Monday night, after hastily leaving the G7 summit, President Donald Trump offered a direct contradiction to Ms Gabbard's claims.
"I don't care what she said," Mr Trump said.
"I think they were very close to having it."
The IAEA said Israel had directly hit the underground enrichment halls at the Natanz facility, leaving them "severely damaged, if not destroyed all together".
According to the IAEA, the Natanz site was one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60 per cent U-235.
After the attack, the IAEA found radioactive contamination at the site, but it said the levels of radioactivity outside remained unchanged and at normal levels.
Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Effie Defrin said: "We've struck deep, hitting Iran's nuclear, ballistic and command capabilities."
A nuclear complex at Isfahan and centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran were also damaged.
Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor.
The IAEA said it had information that the heavy-water reactor had been hit, but that it was not operating and reported no radiological effects.
Experts say attacks on enrichment facilities are mainly a "chemical problem", not radiological.
Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, says the main concern from destroying an enrichment plant is releasing the harmful uranium hexafluoride gas — highly corrosive and toxic — that's contained in centrifuges.
"When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," Ms Dolzikova said.
The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, 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."
Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, says nuclear facilities are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment.
"Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," Professor Bryant said.
While there so far has been no major radiological incidents as a result of the attacks, IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.
"There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist," he said.
In a post on X, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also voiced his concern about the potential "immediate and long-term impacts on the environment and health of people in Iran and across the region".
Well that's a different story.
A strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr could cause an "absolute radiological catastrophe", says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
While most reactor vessels are protected by steel and concrete containment structures, Dr Cook says the surrounding infrastructure, like spent fuel pools and cooling equipment, would "definitely be a concern" if targeted.
For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water.
In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water.
While Bahrain and Qatar are fully reliant on desalinated water.
"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 Center.
"Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
On Thursday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the military has struck the Bushehr nuclear site in Iran.
However, an Israeli military official later said that comment "was a mistake".
The official would only confirm that Israel had hit the Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak nuclear sites in Iran.
Pressed further on Bushehr, the official said he could neither confirm or deny that Israel had struck the location.
Bushehr is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant, which sits on the Gulf coast, and uses Russian fuel that Russia then takes back when it is spent to reduce proliferation risk.
Heavy water is H20 made up of hydrogen-2 instead of hydrogen-1.
Dr Cook says it's a little heavier than normal water.
"When you use heavy water, you can run your reactor on non-enriched uranium, avoiding the expense of enriching it in the first place, though the water does cost more.
"But the problem is that heavy-water reactors can also be used to produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons."
Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium.
"The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development."
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy-water reactors.
So does Israel, but it has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them.
ABC with wires
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
30 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump buys himself time, and opens up some new options
In fact, within an hour of the White House release of Trump's statement that 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks', Netanyahu signalled that he was likely to use the time to try his own attacks on the deeply buried Fordow nuclear plant. 'I established that we will achieve all of our objectives, all of their nuclear facilities,' he said. 'We have the power to do so.' In fact, American and foreign experts say, the Israelis have been preparing military and covert options for years, examining how they might interrupt the massive electrical supply systems that keep the centrifuges buried in an enrichment hall under a mountain. Even the introduction of a surge or a pulse in that electrical flow could destabilise and destroy the delicate machines as they spin at supersonic speeds, like a top spinning out of control. In recent days, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Israel's destruction of the electric plant above another enrichment centre, at Natanz, probably critically damaged the thousands of centrifuges spinning below. The Israelis have considered what it would take to bomb and seal the tunnel entrances into the facility, trapping workers inside and making it all the more difficult to bring near-bomb-grade fuel into the plant for a final boost that would make it usable in a weapon. That fuel itself, stored in the ancient capital of Isfahan, would also be a target for the Israelis, American officials say. But the first question is whether the Iranians have the political flexibility to seize on the time period Trump has opened up. Administration officials say Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, has already been in touch in recent days with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with whom he has been talking since early April. 'I think the question is, can the Iranians see this as an opportunity to avoid the significant challenges that would come from the destruction of their last remaining facility?' asked Laura Holgate, who served as American ambassador to the IAEA during the Biden administration. But she said that 'direct surrender is probably not on the table for them', or 'total abandonment of enrichment capacity either, even now'. Robert Litwak, a scholar who has written extensively on diplomacy with Iran, said, 'Here is the diplomatic needle both sides need to thread: the US accepts that Iran has a right to enrich uranium, and Iran accepts that it must completely dismantle its nuclear program'. The conflict between Israel and Iran has consumed the president's week, as he returned early from the Group of 7 meeting in Canada to deal with the war. He spent the early part of the week posting a series of bellicose threats on social media, seeming to lay the groundwork for the US to join Israel's bombing campaign. He urged all the residents of Tehran, a city of roughly 10 million people, to evacuate, claimed the US had 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran', and said American officials knew where Iran's leader was hiding but would not kill him – 'at least not for now'. Many of the president's allies believed that the US's entrance into the war was imminent. But on Wednesday, the president said he had not made a final decision about whether to bomb Iran, and he berated Iran for not agreeing to a new deal to limit its nuclear program. Still, he said, it was not too late for a diplomatic solution. 'Nothing's too late,' he said. Trump's public flirtation with entering the war has sharply divided his base – so much so that Vice President JD Vance wrote a lengthy social media post on Tuesday seeking to downplay concerns that the president was abandoning his commitment to keep America out of overseas conflict. Loading 'I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals,' Vance wrote. But some of the president's most prominent allies, including Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former aide Steve Bannon have criticised the prospect of the US getting involved in another country's war. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Greene posted on social media. On the other end of the spectrum, many of Trump's hawkish allies in the Senate, including South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham and Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, are urging the president to take a more aggressive posture toward Iran. 'Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat,' Graham said this week on Fox News. 'If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.'

Sydney Morning Herald
30 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Will Israel's interceptors outlast Iran's missiles? The answer may shape the war
Jerusalem: Aside from a potentially game-changing US intervention that shapes the fate of Iran's nuclear program, two factors will help decide the length of the Israel-Iran war: Israel's reserve of missile interceptors and Iran's stock of long-range missiles. Since Iran started retaliating against Israel's fire last week, Israel's world-leading air defence system has intercepted most incoming Iranian ballistic missiles, giving the Israeli air force more time to strike Iran without incurring major losses at home. Now, as the war drags on, Israel is firing interceptors faster than it can produce them. That has raised questions within the Israeli security establishment about whether the country will run low on air defence missiles before Iran uses up its ballistic arsenal, according to eight current and former officials. Already, Israel's military has had to conserve its use of interceptors and is giving greater priority to the defence of densely populated areas and strategic infrastructure, according to the officials. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely. 'No one envisaged we would be fighting on so many fronts and defending against so many rounds of ballistic missiles.' Zohar Palti, former senior Mossad officer Interceptors are 'not grains of rice,' said Brigadier General Ran Kochav, who commanded Israel's air defence system until 2021 and still serves in the military reserve. 'The number is finite.' 'If a missile is supposed to hit refineries in Haifa, it's clear that it's more important to intercept that missile than one that will hit the Negev desert,' Kochav said. Conserving Israel's interceptors is 'a challenge', he added. 'We can make it, but it's a challenge.' Asked for comment on the limits of its interceptor arsenal, the Israeli military said in a brief statement that it 'is prepared and ready to handle any scenario and is operating defensively and offensively to remove threats to Israeli civilians'.

The Age
30 minutes ago
- The Age
Will Israel's interceptors outlast Iran's missiles? The answer may shape the war
Jerusalem: Aside from a potentially game-changing US intervention that shapes the fate of Iran's nuclear program, two factors will help decide the length of the Israel-Iran war: Israel's reserve of missile interceptors and Iran's stock of long-range missiles. Since Iran started retaliating against Israel's fire last week, Israel's world-leading air defence system has intercepted most incoming Iranian ballistic missiles, giving the Israeli air force more time to strike Iran without incurring major losses at home. Now, as the war drags on, Israel is firing interceptors faster than it can produce them. That has raised questions within the Israeli security establishment about whether the country will run low on air defence missiles before Iran uses up its ballistic arsenal, according to eight current and former officials. Already, Israel's military has had to conserve its use of interceptors and is giving greater priority to the defence of densely populated areas and strategic infrastructure, according to the officials. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely. 'No one envisaged we would be fighting on so many fronts and defending against so many rounds of ballistic missiles.' Zohar Palti, former senior Mossad officer Interceptors are 'not grains of rice,' said Brigadier General Ran Kochav, who commanded Israel's air defence system until 2021 and still serves in the military reserve. 'The number is finite.' 'If a missile is supposed to hit refineries in Haifa, it's clear that it's more important to intercept that missile than one that will hit the Negev desert,' Kochav said. Conserving Israel's interceptors is 'a challenge', he added. 'We can make it, but it's a challenge.' Asked for comment on the limits of its interceptor arsenal, the Israeli military said in a brief statement that it 'is prepared and ready to handle any scenario and is operating defensively and offensively to remove threats to Israeli civilians'.