Iranian authorities are reporting no signs of off-site radiation or contamination in the wake of U.S. attacks on three of the country’s nuclear sites. […] That’s according to a statement put out by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sunday. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the agency’s Director General, said that “as of this time, we don’t expect that there will be any health consequences for people or the environment outside the targeted sites.”

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      No. First, even enriched uranium is not particularly radioactive without human intervention (with a half-life of 704 million years). Second, the uranium stockpile may be buried under a mountain of rubble, rather than dispersed by the explosion. Third, who knows if the Iranian government is telling the truth; they have good reason to claim that their stockpile is intact even if it isn’t.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Uranium is, however, chemically toxic.

        And it’s possible to remotely sense releases or radionuclides, assuming anyone with that capability is inclined to tell the truth.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I’ve read that the UN atomic energy commission has also said that they haven’t measured any increases in radiation, so it doesn’t look likely to me that Iran is hiding anything.

        I also saw an article where they showed satellite images indicating that Iran may have evacuated a lot of materiel from Fordow shortly before the strikes.