The idea of attacking facilities that work to develop nuclear power could immediately think of the worst images of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima. But experts say that even if the strike hits key materials, bombing uranium-enriched sites is unlikely to cause a large-scale nuclear disaster. Despite concerns about widespread radiation, the IAEA insists that “any health consequences are expected for people or the environment outside the target location,” Grossi said in a previous update released on Sunday.
The IAEA says the biggest environmental risk for these sites is local. Uranium enrichment facilities contain toxic gases and chemicals, similar to those stored in any large industrial chemical plant.
“The material in the enrichment facility has not yet reached the point where it can maintain a chain reaction that can sustain a large-scale nuclear explosion,” Wolfsthal said. (IAEA estimates that Iran has a rich uranium content of up to 60%, which is enough to make nuclear weapons, according to a communique of atomic scientists. The IAEA did report in January that it found a small amount of uranium, like the damage caused by Fordow site.
“You have gasoline in your car,” he said. “You have a collision with a car or an accident and it can explode, and it can even explode. Some toxic materials may be released. However, that will be quite limited loss.”
He added that the attack on Isfahan could damage the barrels holding Dutch UFH gas, a radioactive compound that could be scattered throughout the region. But the damage from such explosions may be limited by scope.
“It’s just a big, big gas molecule, so it won’t go too far,” Emily Caffrey, director of the Health Physics Program at the University of Alabama, told ABC News.
Iran has a facility that can cause significant damage if hit. Iran’s only commercial nuclear reactor is located near the city of Bushe; the site contains thousands of kilograms of nuclear material that are undergoing chain reactions to produce fuel. (Like Isfahan, research reactors have much less fuel than commercial reactors and operate at lower temperatures, which makes them less dangerous in the event of accidents. The Israeli government said last week that its own strike hit Bushel, but Israeli officials later backed down on those claims.
“In my technical evaluation, attacking nuclear reactors is, really, really, really stupid,” Wolfstein said.
There is also a bigger, longer-term environmental threat on hand: Iran’s chance to take the last step after these attacks actually build nuclear weapons.
“Both Israel and the United States have nuclear weapons and attacked Iran, and that’s not a loss,” Wolfstein said. “Russia has nuclear weapons, Ukraine has no nuclear weapons. North Korea with nuclear weapons is beautiful. The information here is that nuclear weapons bring you security and immunity and enable you to act against your opponents, which is a very dangerous message. We will send it to the nuclear-choice countries and may immediately decide to pursue them.”
Grossi’s speech on Monday is related to this attention.
“One thing is for sure, and it’s a simple fact: if more states in the world had more nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t be safer.”
