Israel’s Intensified Efforts Against Iran’s Nuclear Program
As Israel ramps up its attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, whispers from former President Donald Trump suggest that the United States might consider joining these efforts. Here’s what we know about the potential health risks and radiation threats involved.
No Elevated Radiation Levels Detected Yet
Iran continues to enrich uranium at two primary sites: Natanz and Fordo. Iranian officials claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful, aimed at harnessing atomic energy. However, highly enriched uranium, which is radioactive, can be used in making nuclear weapons. Israel is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring such capabilities.
In Natanz, located about 220 kilometers southeast of Tehran, uranium was enriched to 60% purity—a troubling level that is just a step away from weapons-grade. Israel successfully targeted part of the facility, leading to a significant blow to its operations, as reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Most of Natanz’s centrifuges are housed underground to shield them from air strikes. Recently, reports indicated that a substantial number of these centrifuges may have been destroyed during an Israeli attack that cut off the site’s energy supply. These machines were previously enriching uranium to 5% purity.
Despite concerns of possible contamination within Natanz, the levels of radiation outside the facility remain normal, according to Rafael Grossi, the IAEA’s director, during an urgent meeting.
The Fordo site, located deep beneath a mountain roughly 100 kilometers southwest of Tehran, is another focal point for Iran’s nuclear efforts. Given its strategic significance and fortified position, it has become a high-value target for Israeli forces. The U.S. is even contemplating the use of powerful bunker-busting bombs to ensure its destruction.
Experts suggest that, should an attack occur at Fordo, the potential radiation fallout would likely be manageable, similar to what could occur at Natanz. While there would be some chemical hazards and minor radiation levels, protective gear could help minimize risks.
Recently, Israeli forces targeted several buildings in Isfahan, including a uranium conversion facility. Fortunately, the IAEA reported no signs of increased radiation in that vicinity, which is about 350 kilometers southeast of Tehran.
Minimal Uranium Risk
Experts agree that even if radiation were to leak from sites like Natanz or Fordo, it likely wouldn’t present a serious threat to nearby populations. “Very little uranium would be released from such attacks,” noted David Albright, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert. He emphasized that uranium is not particularly toxic and is naturally present in the environment. In fact, someone near a facility with a leak would probably experience no more radiation than someone taking a transatlantic flight.
To face health risks, a person would need to ingest a substantial amount of uranium, which is found in seawater and the Earth’s crust.
Chemical Threat from Fluorine
Experts indicate that the real danger from any attack on these nuclear sites might come from fluorine gas. This gas is used to create uranium hexafluoride, which is introduced into centrifuges. Fluorine is highly unpredictable, corrosive, and can cause severe harm if inhaled.
Concerns are noticeably higher if Israel were to target Iran’s sole nuclear power plant, as noted by Fabian Hinz from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The components of a nuclear reactor, including spent nuclear fuel, remain hazardous for thousands of years.
The Bushehr nuclear plant, situated about 750 kilometers south of Tehran, is less likely to be a target for Israel as it is not viewed as part of Iran’s weapons development program.
By tackling these pressing issues, we join the global discussion on ensuring a safer world, one where the risks of nuclear proliferation are managed responsibly.
