A year after opening a front in support of Gaza from southern Lebanon, the conflict has escalated to unprecedented levels, crossing numerous red lines. The most recent development has sparked fears of a nuclear-like catastrophe in Beirut, raising alarms about potential exposure to hazardous materials. While some dismiss these concerns as exaggerated, experts insist that the situation may be more serious than it seems.

The Lebanese Council of Chemists issued a stark warning regarding the aftermath of bombings in Beirut's southern suburbs and other areas across the country. According to their statement, the extent of the destruction—buildings and land penetrated to considerable depths—strongly suggests the use of bombs containing depleted uranium (DU), a substance known for its immense penetrating power. The council emphasized that using such internationally banned weapons in densely populated areas like Beirut would have catastrophic consequences, including widespread destruction and severe health risks, especially for those exposed to the dust produced by the explosions.

The council urged the Lebanese government to take the issue to the UN Security Council, framing the bombings as a deliberate attempt to cause mass civilian casualties. It also advised citizens to avoid the affected areas, maintaining a minimum distance of two kilometers, and to use protective gear if they must approach.

Conflicting Reports on Uranium Use

While the Chemists Council called for immediate action, the Ministry of Public Health released a statement seeking to clarify the situation. It reported that the Lebanese Atomic Energy Commission had been consulted to investigate the possibility of uranium use. Dr. Bilal Nsouli, head of the commission, stated that no evidence had been found to confirm the presence of uranium in the Israeli strikes against Lebanon. He added that a formal scientific report would be issued soon. The ministry urged caution in spreading unverified scientific claims and called for precision before releasing sensitive information.

In response to these conflicting reports, Asas Media website reached out to Dr. Jihad Abboud, the head of the Chemists Council, to gain clarity. Abboud stood firm on the council’s position, stating that the warning was based on scientific evidence and expertise.

When asked about the discrepancies with the Atomic Energy Commission's findings, Abboud simply replied, "We are speaking scientifically, and we have presented the data we possess."

Evidence of Depleted Uranium Use

According to Dr. Abboud, the council’s conclusions were based on three key factors:

1. Preliminary tests: Early analyses of the bombing sites suggested the presence of depleted uranium.
2. Historical precedent: Israel has a documented history of using uranium-containing shells, particularly during the 2006 Lebanon War, a fact that is both scientifically and historically verified.
3. Destruction patterns: The scale and nature of the destruction caused by the bombs resemble those observed in previous instances where depleted uranium was used.

To illustrate the devastating impact of these weapons, Abboud drew comparisons with previous bombings, such as the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which left a crater 15 meters deep and 50 meters wide. In a more recent attack targeting a political figure, the resulting crater was much smaller—two meters wide—but the bomb penetrated over 30 meters underground. Abboud explained that such bombs are designed to bypass surface fortifications and detonate deep beneath the ground, a signature trait of munitions containing depleted uranium.

The red dust produced by the explosions, which contrasts with the usual gray or white dust from above-ground detonations, is another telltale sign. This dust, Abboud noted, is likely contaminated with uranium particles, raising serious concerns about long-term exposure and environmental contamination.

Health Risks and Future Generations

Abboud warned that the effects of depleted uranium go beyond immediate physical damage. While the heavy uranium particles are unlikely to travel far from the explosion sites, those living within the two-kilometer radius face significant health risks. Inhaling uranium particles can lead to serious lung and kidney damage and increase the risk of cancer. Furthermore, uranium remains in the environment, gradually transforming into salt and potentially contaminating groundwater. This could pose a long-term threat to human health, as future generations may unwittingly consume contaminated water.

A Call for International Action

In light of these findings, Abboud renewed his call for the Lebanese government to take legal action against Israel in the UN Security Council. He stressed that Israel’s use of such weapons not only endangers those in the immediate vicinity of the bombings, such as journalists and medics, but also poses a threat to future generations due to the potential contamination of Lebanon’s land and water resources. The Chemists Council has offered its expertise to assist with any international investigations, having previously participated in inquiries such as the Brussels committee that investigated weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

An anonymous expert also weighed in, criticizing the Ministry of Public Health’s handling of the situation. The expert expressed disappointment that the ministry did not engage with the Chemists Council directly to review the available evidence. Moreover, the ministry’s reliance on atomic radiation experts—despite the fact that the Chemists Council’s statement did not focus on radiation—was seen as a significant oversight.

The expert sarcastically concluded, “Even if the Israeli bombs did not contain uranium, what exactly was released in those explosions—rosewater, or something more dangerous?”