“Your car is filled with fuel,” he pointed out. “In the event of a crash, a fire or explosion could occur. This might lead to the release of toxic materials, but the impact would likely remain contained.”
“One thing is unequivocal, and that is the plain truth: More nuclear weapons in more countries globally will not enhance our safety,” he asserted.
Attacking nuclear power facilities may immediately evoke disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nonetheless, experts indicate that, even if these strikes impact critical materials, striking uranium enrichment sites is unlikely to result in a massive nuclear catastrophe. Despite concerns about radiation dispersion, the IAEA affirms that harmful effects on individuals or the environment beyond the targeted sites should not occur, as emphasized in a recent update by Grossi.
The materials housed within these enrichment facilities have not reached a stage where they could spark a chain reaction leading to a large-scale nuclear explosion, as noted by Wolfsthal. Iran’s supply of enriched uranium currently stands at approximately 60%, which is still insufficient to manufacture a nuclear weapon, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Nevertheless, in January, the IAEA discovered a small quantity of significantly more enriched uranium at the Fordow site. Wolfsthal drew a comparison between the repercussions of strikes on locations like Natanz and a vehicular collision.
According to the IAEA, the primary environmental threat posed by these facilities is local. Uranium enrichment plants contain hazardous gases and chemicals, akin to those found in any large industrial chemical facility.
“It’s a heavy gas molecule, so its range of dispersion is limited,” elucidated Emily Caffrey, director of the Health Physics Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an interview with ABC News.
There also looms a broader, longer-term environmental peril: the possibility that Iran may take definitive measures following these attacks to develop a nuclear weapon.
“It’s not lost on anyone that Israel and the US possess nuclear weapons and have targeted Iran, a country that lacks them,” Wolfsthal observed. “Russia has nuclear capabilities, while Ukraine does not. On the contrary, North Korea, armed with nuclear weapons, appears secure. The implicit message here is that possessing nuclear weapons offers a sense of security and impunity, empowering nations to take action against their enemies. This narrative presents a significant danger for countries that had been weighing nuclear options and might now be inclined to pursue them.”
He further added that attacks on Isfahan could have inflicted harm on containers housing uranium hexafluoride gas, a radioactive chemical compound with the potential to spread in the vicinity. However, any resultant damage from such an explosion is likely to be restricted.
There is one facility in Iran that could cause substantial harm if targeted – Iran’s sole commercial nuclear reactor located near Bushehr city, which houses numerous kilograms of nuclear material necessary for chain reactions to produce fuel. In statements made a day before the US strikes, Grossi cautioned that an assault on the plant “could result in a high release of radioactivity into the environment.” Last week, the Israeli government maintained that its strikes had hit Bushehr, although Israeli officials later retracted those statements.
Grossi echoed this concern in his remarks on Monday.
“In my professional opinion, targeting a nuclear reactor is extremely ill-advised,” Wolfsthal remarked.
