-
16:40
-
16:20
-
16:00
-
15:40
-
15:20
-
15:00
-
14:40
-
14:20
-
14:00
-
13:30
-
13:00
-
12:30
-
12:00
-
11:30
-
11:00
-
10:40
-
10:20
-
10:00
-
09:40
-
09:20
-
09:00
-
08:40
-
08:20
-
08:00
-
07:30
-
07:00
Moroccan Expert: Why Striking Iranian Nuclear Sites Cannot Produce Dangerous Radiation
Following recent U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear-related facilities in Iran, public anxiety has risen over potential radioactive contamination or the formation of a so-called "nuclear cloud" that could extend beyond Iran's borders. This concern has been fueled by the strategic significance of the targeted sites, which include Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.
In response to these fears, Hajar El Fattihi, a Moroccan expert in radioactive waste management, clarified that such strikes do not pose an immediate radiation hazard. According to El Fattihi, the primary dangers are environmental and chemical, rather than radiological.
In a social media statement, El Fattihi refuted claims suggesting a high risk of nuclear leakage, explaining that the facilities in question do not house active reactors or spent nuclear fuel. Instead, they are involved in uranium enrichment using a highly toxic chemical compound known as uranium hexafluoride (UF6).
While UF6 is chemically hazardous, it only presents a radiation threat if inhaled or ingested. El Fattihi noted that this substance mainly consists of non-fissile uranium-238, with only a small proportion of uranium-235—the fissile isotope used in nuclear weapons or reactor fuel.
She emphasized that a nuclear explosion requires highly specific technical conditions, including achieving a critical mass and precise geometric configuration, none of which exist at the targeted Iranian sites. Therefore, the likelihood of a nuclear detonation is scientifically unfounded.
El Fattihi further explained that the radiation type emitted by such materials is predominantly alpha radiation, which cannot penetrate the skin and is generally safe unless internalized. Although some decay products may emit gamma rays, their intensity is low and unlikely to cause harm at a distance from any potential leak.
Dismissing comparisons to the Chernobyl disaster, El Fattihi highlighted that the situation in Iran is fundamentally different. The Chernobyl incident involved an active nuclear reactor and the release of large quantities of fission products, whereas the Iranian sites lack both reactors and spent fuel. This significantly reduces the risk of widespread radioactive contamination.
She also pointed out that much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is located underground, which helps contain hazardous materials and limits environmental exposure.
However, El Fattihi cautioned about the potential risk of groundwater contamination. If the toxic materials dissolve in water and the surrounding soil or rock layers are not sufficiently impermeable, they could pollute the water table.
On Sunday, June 22, 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that no radiation increase had been detected at or near the affected sites following the airstrikes. The IAEA also announced an emergency meeting at its Vienna headquarters scheduled for Monday, as stated by its Director General Rafael Grossi.
