Explained: What are 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 Gulf 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 specialises 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.
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 vapour 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 tonnes of concrete, earth and rock".
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.
Why are Gulf states especially worried ?
For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water.
In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water.
In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics.
While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline.
"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.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
'Grave war crimes': Iran slams Israeli attacks at UN Human Rights Council
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on June 21 accused Israel of committing 'grave war crimes' by targeting the country's nuclear facilities, telling the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that such attacks are 'absolutely banned under international law'. Speaking at the Council's session in Geneva, Araghchi described Israel's recent strikes on Iran as 'unprovoked aggression' and 'an unjust war' that began in the early hours of June 13. He said the operations had targeted off-duty military personnel, university professors, residential areas and hospitals, resulting in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of Iranians. 'Our peaceful nuclear facilities have also been targeted despite their being under full monitoring of the IAEA,' he said. 'Israel attacks on nuclear facilities are grave war crimes, given also the danger of environmental and health catastrophe as the result of radiological leakage.' He also criticised what he called a betrayal of diplomacy, noting that Iran had been engaged in talks with the United States aimed at reaching a peaceful agreement over its nuclear programme. 'We were attacked in the midst of an ongoing diplomatic process. We were supposed to meet with Americans on June 15 to craft a very promising agreement for peaceful resolution of the issues fabricated over our peaceful nuclear programme. It was a betrayal of diplomacy and an unprecedented blow to the foundation of international law and UN system,' he said. Calling on member states to act, Araghchi said, 'This is a historic moment for human civilisation… The world, every State, every UN mechanism and body, has to be alarmed and has to act now to stop the aggressor, to end impunity, and to hold the criminals accountable.' Israel condemns Iran being given floor at UNHRC Earlier in the day, Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon condemned the Council's decision to give Iran a platform to air its views. 'The fact that Minister Araghchi has been invited to address the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva tomorrow is even more shameful and demonstrates that this UN body has lost its sense of purpose and its moral compass,' Danon said, in a letter addressed to the president of the UN Security Council. 'It is shameful,' Danon wrote, referring to Araghchi's claim that Iran only targets military sites. 'Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lying and claiming to target military sites is a pathetic attempt to distract from what has clearly become a modus operandi for his regime: targeting civilians and wreaking havoc and destruction on the Israeli people.' Hostilities escalate The situation in West Asia worsened on June 21 as both Israel and Iran stepped up their attacks. Israel struck key nuclear infrastructure sites in Iran. In a significant retaliation, Iran launched missiles equipped with cluster munitions—marking the first confirmed use of such weapons in the current conflict. One of Iran's missiles struck an Israeli hospital on June 20, leaving many injured. In the wake of the hospital strike, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran's leadership would bear a 'full price' for its actions. He said Israel's military operations were progressing faster than anticipated. 'We are moving faster than planned. Our goal is clear: to neutralise Iran's nuclear capabilities before it is too late,' Netanyahu said. Also on June 20, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz said that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'can no longer be allowed to exist', pointing to what he said was the latter's stated intent to destroy Israel. US President Donald Trump, however, has been non-committal regarding America's role in the conflict. While US officials are reported to be preparing for a possible strike on Iran in the coming days, President Trump on June 19, when asked if he was moving closer to striking Iran's nuclear facilities, said: 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' While Israel has already hit Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz, a much more fortified complex exists under a mountain in Fodrow. As of now, only the US is said to have a bomb large enough—the 30,000-pound, bunker-busting GBU-57—that can possibly penetrate the mountainside and the fortified structure at Fodrow.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
15 minutes ago
- First Post
Iran losing ‘no war, no peace' bet as it battles to survive just 5 years after it hit US bases
Iran's decades-long 'no war, no peace' strategy collapses under pressure as Israel's military assault intensifies. Experts say Tehran now faces a war it cannot win, threatening the regime's survival and exposing flaws in its long-standing regional strategy. read more Five years after Iran's carefully calibrated missile strikes on American bases in response to the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, Tehran now finds itself engulfed in the full-scale war it had long sought to avoid. Back in 2020, the Islamic Republic had launched one of its most significant attacks on US forces but importantly, it was choreographed to prevent escalation. Iran quietly relayed its intentions to Washington through indirect channels, ensuring there were no fatalities and allowing both sides to step back from the brink of open conflict. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's leadership, particularly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had relied for decades on a strategy of calibrated aggression, projecting strength through threats, proxies and covert operations, without provoking a direct confrontation. But analysts say that strategic posture has now crumbled under the weight of miscalculation and hubris, as Iran enters a war it neither expected nor is equipped to win. 'Iran only has bad options now,' Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations told the Financial Times. 'Khamenei stuck to this idea of 'no war, no peace' for too long. It's been untenable for years.' Since launching a surprise wave of strikes on Iran, Israel has claimed the upper hand—decimating missile sites, striking nuclear facilities, and killing key military figures while maintaining total air superiority. Iran continues to fire missiles at Israel, but its response has failed to shift the military balance. The shift came in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Hamas assault on Israel. Though Iran claimed no involvement, Israel viewed the attack—which killed 1,200 and took 250 hostages—as part of a broader Iranian-backed effort to destabilise the region. Israel responded by targeting Iran and its proxies with force and frequency never seen before. Analysts told the FT that Iran misread Israel's tolerance for risk and overestimated the strength of its regional alliance, the so-called 'axis of resistance.' While Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Houthis remain active, none have stepped in meaningfully as Iran comes under direct Israeli attack. Soleimani's once-vaunted regional network now appears overstretched and strategically fragmented. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Israel and Iran exchanged strikes a week into their war Friday, while new diplomatic efforts appeared to be underway as Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Switzerland for meetings with the European Union's top diplomat and counterparts from the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Speaking beforehand at the United Nations' top human rights forum in Geneva, Iran's top diplomat called Israel's strikes an 'unprovoked aggression.' Israel's military says 25 fighter jets carried out airstrikes Friday morning targeting 'missile storage and launch infrastructure components' in western Iran. Thousands of people protested in Iran's capital over the ongoing Israeli strikes, with one hard-line demonstrator telling The Associated Press: 'How can we compromise with an enemy that breaches deals?' A week of Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 657 people and wounded 2,037 others, the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists said Friday. With inputs from agencies


India.com
24 minutes ago
- India.com
India and Israel almost destroyed Pakistan's nuclear programme until..., Netanyahu was...
(Representational image: freepik) New Delhi: A few days back, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma alleged that the Congress made a 'historic blunder' in the 1980s by allowing Pakistan to become a nuclear power as he claimed that intelligence from R&AW had confirmed uranium enrichment activity at Pakistan's Kahuta facility and Israel had offered operational support, including intel and joint strike planning. The then Prime minister Indira Gandhi initially approved the aerial attack on Pakistan's nuclear plants but called off the operation fearing global repercussions. Later, Rajiv Gandhi abandoned the plan in favour of diplomacy under foreign pressure. Pakistan's Kahuta facility During the late 1970s, Pakistan was rapidly advancing its uranium enrichment programme at Kahuta, near Rawalpindi under then-military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq. Pakistan decided to start its nuclear programme after the humiliating defeat to India in the 1971 war under the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They selected Kahuta for establishing their nuclear weapons plant and for uranium enrichment centrifuges. The key part was played by A.Q. Khan. India's intelligence agency R&AW confirmed Kahuta's role in producing weapons-grade uranium. It was during the early 1980s, The joint Israel-India operation Israel also learned about Pakistan's nuclear ambition and presented to India a proposal to carry out a joint airstrike to destroy the Kahuta nuclear facility. For this, Israel would fly its F-15 and F-16 fighter jets into Indian airspace and use Indian air bases in Jamnagar, Gujarat and Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir for the assault. Indian Air Force's Jaguar deep-strike jets would support the mission. Why did Israel make this offer? Israel's offer to destroy Pakistan's Kahuta nuclear facility came in the wake of its fear of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of its enemy countries like Libya or Iran who had close ties with Pakistan. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin even wrote to UK PM Margaret Thatcher in 1979 warning of the threat. Why was the operation aborted? According to reports, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was inclined to accept the Israeli proposal but the mission was ultimately called off due to domestic and geopolitical reasons, especially the Khalistani movement in Punjab under Bhindranwale. One more factor that played a big role was threat of Pakistan's retaliation which could have led to a direct war. What happened in May 1998? Pakistan became a nuclear power in May 1998 when it conducted five nuclear tests in the Chagai Hills of Balochistan Province. Benjamin Netanyahu was the Israeli Prime Minister at that time. Pakistan had been working on its nuclear agenda under Project-706, the codename of a research and development programme to develop Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Project-706 was started by Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1974 after India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, conducted its first nuclear tests in May 1974.