3 ms·

"The U.N. nuclear watchdog says there's 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after US strikes on Iran nuclear sites" https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nucle

"The U.N. nuclear watchdog says there's 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after US strikes on Iran nuclear sites" https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-051049107.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-0510491... That's the whole article. If we blow up a place filled with enriched uranium, shouldn't there be an obvious spike in off-site radiation levels, as the uranium settles to the ground? Meaning, isn't this damning evidence that there was no enriched uranium?

throwawaybob420 1y ago
[flagged]
lolinder 1y ago
Possibly. It could also be evidence that the bombs didn't really do their job. Either they missed or the bunkers were fortified enough and/or deep enough to avoid even the bunker busters.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  In Iran's defense, there was credible OSINT[0] warning of the B-2s taking off 12+ hours in advance of the strike. Iran knows what a GBU-57 is, the writing was pretty clearly on the wall that a strike was imminent. It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack. [0] https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207 https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207
  - lolinder 1y ago
    Yes, that too. It was in newspapers hours before the attack, so there's no way Iran didn't know it was coming.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    > "there was credible OSINT[0] warning" That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing. https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strike-on-iran-began-with-a-ruse-c7188cd2 https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strik... ("U.S. Strike on Iran Began With a Ruse")
rudolph9 1y ago
The enriched uranium was reportedly moved before the bombing. As far as I know, the objective was to destroy the enrichment facilities.
timhigins 1y ago
Based on satellite imagery from Maxar and reports from Iran state news agencies, they moved the uranium in about 50 trucks to a “safe location” [1]. From Reuters [2]: > Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago. > "The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots," he told the channel. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trump-fordow-satellite-imagery-unusual-activity-2088918 https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trum... 2. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch-new-attacks-after-tehran-rules-out-nuclear-talks-2025-06-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch...
- perihelions 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - diggan 1y ago
    It's a quote from an individual, which is rightly unedited regardless of what propaganda that specific individual is trying to put out. Reuters does the same with US politicians who are obviously lying, or any other statements from people. It's not their job to only share "what is truth" but to share different perspectives regardless of their biases. Usually subjective opinions are left for opinion-pieces, which that article isn't. Another example from the same article, first they write: > "The strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a televised address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Then afterwards they write: > However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged. That's how real journalism works, find people with perspectives from both sides of the coin, and let them say theirs. Obviously one of them are correct, but it's not Reuter who will put down the foot and tell you what to believe.
    - perihelions 1y ago
      [flagged]
trothamel 1y ago
The uranium is supposed to be uranium hexaflouride, right? That's solid at room temperature, so if the mountain collapsed onto it you would't expect to see it off-site.

throwawaybob420 1y ago

[flagged]

lolinder 1y ago

Possibly. It could also be evidence that the bombs didn't really do their job. Either they missed or the bunkers were fortified enough and/or deep enough to avoid even the bunker busters.

bigyabai 1y ago
In Iran's defense, there was credible OSINT[0] warning of the B-2s taking off 12+ hours in advance of the strike. Iran knows what a GBU-57 is, the writing was pretty clearly on the wall that a strike was imminent. It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack. [0] https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207 https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207
- lolinder 1y ago
  Yes, that too. It was in newspapers hours before the attack, so there's no way Iran didn't know it was coming.
- perihelions 1y ago
  > "there was credible OSINT[0] warning" That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing. https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strike-on-iran-began-with-a-ruse-c7188cd2 https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strik... ("U.S. Strike on Iran Began With a Ruse")

rudolph9 1y ago

The enriched uranium was reportedly moved before the bombing. As far as I know, the objective was to destroy the enrichment facilities.

timhigins 1y ago

Based on satellite imagery from Maxar and reports from Iran state news agencies, they moved the uranium in about 50 trucks to a “safe location” [1]. From Reuters [2]: > Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago. > "The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots," he told the channel. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trump-fordow-satellite-imagery-unusual-activity-2088918 https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trum... 2. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch-new-attacks-after-tehran-rules-out-nuclear-talks-2025-06-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch...

perihelions 1y ago
[flagged]
- diggan 1y ago
  It's a quote from an individual, which is rightly unedited regardless of what propaganda that specific individual is trying to put out. Reuters does the same with US politicians who are obviously lying, or any other statements from people. It's not their job to only share "what is truth" but to share different perspectives regardless of their biases. Usually subjective opinions are left for opinion-pieces, which that article isn't. Another example from the same article, first they write: > "The strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a televised address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Then afterwards they write: > However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged. That's how real journalism works, find people with perspectives from both sides of the coin, and let them say theirs. Obviously one of them are correct, but it's not Reuter who will put down the foot and tell you what to believe.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    [flagged]

trothamel 1y ago

The uranium is supposed to be uranium hexaflouride, right? That's solid at room temperature, so if the mountain collapsed onto it you would't expect to see it off-site.