The US bombings of 22 June against the Uranium enrichment sites in Iran – a Fordow, Natanz And Isfahan – have raised immediate international concerns: the term “nuclear” evokes images of disasters such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. But according to numerous experts and theInternational Agency for Atomic Energy (Aiea), reality is much more complex.
Following Us Attacks and Further Analysis, Iaea Axsed Extensive Damage at Esfahan, Including Tunnel Entrances; Fordow was also directly impactted; Additional Strikes at Natanz.
No off-site Radiation Reported Radiation: https://t.co/ouckja8juc pic.twitter.com/d8jpsmmlv– Iaea – International Atomic Energy Agency (@iaeaorg) June 22, 2025
“It is important to make a distinction between nuclear power plants and uranium enrichment systems, because they are basically different for function, design and risk” – he explained Pete BryantRadioprottezione expert at the University of Liverpool, in an interview with ABC.
The Iranian plants affected operating but structures in which the uranium is refined For civil or military uses. The type of material present – low emission radioactive isotopes – cannot cause a fusion of the core nor a massive dispersion of radiation. The threat, however, is not entirely absent: it moves from radiological risk to chemical and environmental risk.
The uranium, in these structures, is generally stocked in the form of uranium hexaplouror (uf₆), a highly reactive and toxic gas. When hit and dispersed in the air, it can react with atmospheric humidity forming fluorideous acid, a corrosive and dangerous substance if inhaled.
Angela Di Fulvioteacher of nuclear engineering atUniversity of Illinoisexplained to the United Nations that after the attack on the Natanz website, a cloud of gas uf₆ was probably released. However, it is a “heavy” cloud, destined to quickly fall to the ground, with impacts limited in time and space.
“It’s just a large and heavy gas molecule, so it won’t go very far” – he said Emily Caffreydirector of the health physics program of the University of Alabama, in ABC News.
Impact on the environment: no disaster, but local effects
Despite the reassurance on the radioactive front, the environmental effects are not to be underestimated. The explosions affected structures that housed chemically dangerous materials and generated local contaminations. In addition, the physical impact of the bombs-such as the 13-tonted GBU-57 used in the raids-caused significant structural alterations also in underground areas protected by tens of meters of rock.
Second Timothy Mousseauan expert biologist of the effects of radiation on nature, “great explosions on enrichment or storage sites can have a very significant environmental impact”. The half-life of the materials involved, such as Uranium-235, exceeds 700 million years, which makes each dispersion a potential long-term problem, even if today not detectable with standard monitoring tools.
No increase in radiation detected, but future concerns
To date, AIEA has confirmed that it has not detected increases in the levels of external radiation on the affected sites. But this is not enough to erase concerns. Second Lee Bersteinprofessor of nuclear engineering in Berkeley, “there are many things to worry about in the Iran-Israel war, but the release of radioactivity is not one of these”.
Also physics and popularizer Gabriella Greison He took a position on the topic, underlining, in a post LinkedIn, the need to rely on science rather than on emotion: “Nuclear physics is not an opinion. It is knowledge. And knowledge protects”.
According to Greison, the danger to the population is null and the internal risk to the sites is more chemical than radiological type, in particular due to the presence of uf₆. The Bushehr plant, used for civil purposes, has not been affected: a signal, he says, that “civil structures do not touch”.
A geopolitical question before environmental
On a diplomatic level, Iran denies that these plants serve for military purposes. “Iran claims that they serve for the production of civil fuel,” he recalled Matthew Bunnexpert on nuclear policies in Harvard. But the US and Israeli attacks justify themselves with the suspicion that these infrastructures are the basis of an atomic armament program.
Net of direct environmental risk, the broadest problem is that affecting nuclear plants – even if not active as central – opens a new frontier of the conflict: the one in which the war is also fought with medium and long -term effects on the environment, natural resources and local populations.
