Category: IAEA

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi delivers his statement at the Board of Governors meeting at the Agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, 2 March 2026. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)

(As prepared for delivery)

All of us have been following with concern the military attacks in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Middle East. 

The Agency immediately responded, in accordance with our mandate, by focussing on possible radiological emergencies derived from the military operations. 

The IAEA’s Incident and Emergency Centre (IEC) is in operation, with a dedicated team collecting information and assessing the situation while bearing in mind limitations in communications caused by the conflict. 

The regional safety monitoring network has been put on alert and is liaising with us continuously. So far, no elevation of radiation levels above the usual background levels has been detected in countries bordering Iran.

Regarding the status of the nuclear installations in Iran, up to now, we have no indication that any of the nuclear installations, including the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the Tehran Research Reactor or other nuclear fuel cycle facilities have been damaged or hit.

Efforts to contact the Iranian nuclear regulatory authorities through the IEC continue, with no response so far. We hope this indispensable channel of communication can be reestablished as soon as possible. 

Iran and many other countries in the region that have been subjected to military attacks have operational nuclear power plants and nuclear research reactors, as well as associated fuel storage sites, increasing the threat to nuclear safety. The United Arab Emirates has four operating nuclear reactors; Jordan and Syria have operational nuclear research reactors. Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have also been attacked. These countries all use nuclear applications of some sort or the other. We therefore urge utmost restraint in all military operations.

Consistent with the objectives of the IAEA, as enshrined in its Statute, I reiterate my call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.

Let me again recall past General Conference resolutions that state that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.

To achieve the long-term assurance that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons and for maintaining the continued effectiveness of the global non-proliferation regime, we must return to diplomacy and negotiations.

The Agency will continue to monitor the situation, leveraging its unique resources, deep expertise and wide international network. We will report on any radiological consequence of the current military activity, and we stand ready to advise and support our Member States in case of impacts on nuclear safety and security. 

As you know, I have been closely involved in supporting efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the impasse around Iran’s nuclear program. I was invited by the negotiators to the two most recent rounds of consultations in Geneva, to which I brought the IAEA’s technical and impartial advice. 

An understanding eluded the parties this time. I am sure we are, quite understandably, feeling a strong sense of frustration. 

The use of force has been present in international relations since times immemorial. This is a reality. But it is always the least preferred option.

I remain convinced that the lasting solution to this long-existing discord lies on the diplomatic table. The IAEA will be there, ready to play its indispensable part, whenever and wherever it is called. 

When it comes to nuclear matters, a crystal clear understanding of the scope and verifiability of an agreement is of the essence.

Diplomacy is hard, but it is never impossible. Nuclear diplomacy is even harder, but it is never impossible. 

It is not a matter of if, but of when, we will again gather at that diplomatic table – we simply must do so as quickly as possible. 

Mr Chairman, Excellencies,

Let me close by reiterating that I have been in close contact with affected Member States in the region. The IAEA has extensive knowledge of the nature and location of nuclear and radiological material in the region, and we have clear guidance for actions necessary in case an attack or an accident causes a radiological release, as well as the ability for hands-on help if it is required. Let me underline that the situation today is very concerning. We cannot rule out a possible radiological release with serious consequences, including the necessity to evacuate areas as large or larger than major cities. What I can assure you is that the IAEA is there, working with its Member States, and keeping the international community informed while being ready to react immediately if a breach in nuclear safety occurs. 

Cardiac imaging technologies, such as nuclear cardiology and computed tomography, are essential tools for diagnosing coronary artery disease. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Differences in the amount of radiation patients receive from diagnostic tests for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been revealed in a major international study coordinated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Columbia University in the United States. The study underscores an urgent need for improved training, standardized protocols and updated equipment — particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where data suggests radiation doses could be lowered without compromising test results.

CAD occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the heart become narrowed or blocked, typically due to plaque buildup in the artery walls, a process known as atherosclerosis. When the heart does not receive enough blood, it can lead to chest pain, heart attacks, abnormal heart rhythms or heart failure. 

CAD remains the leading cause of death worldwide, and the use of modern imaging tests to detect CAD has increased steadily in recent decades. The study, Worldwide Radiation Dose in Coronary Artery Disease Diagnostic Imaging, published yesterday in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, analyzed data from more than 19 000 patients at 742 centres in 101 countries, making it the largest and most comprehensive global assessment of radiation exposure from non-invasive cardiac imaging. Each centre collected and contributed data from one of nine defined weeks in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Researchers examined radiation doses from widely used imaging techniques, including nuclear cardiology tests and computed tomography (CT) scans of the heart. While many centres were able to keep radiation exposure within recommended limits, the study found marked variation between countries, regions and income levels, with some patients receiving higher doses of radiation than others for the same test.

“Radiation from medical imaging saves lives every day by enabling accurate diagnosis and treatment, but it must always be optimized,” said Professor Andrew J Einstein, the study’s principal investigator and corresponding author. Einstein is Director of Nuclear Cardiology, Cardiac CT and Cardiac MRI at the Seymour, Paul and Gloria Milstein Division of Cardiology at Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City. 

Key findings

The study found that median radiation doses varied widely by imaging modality, income levels and geography. Optimized protocols and use of newer technology, which often deliver clearer images, were consistently associated with lower patient exposure. 

Patients in low- and middle-income countries often received significantly higher doses, particularly for coronary CT angiography, a test that is increasingly used because of CT’s availability and technological improvements.  

“This study shows that where a patient lives, the resources available to a health system and how those resources are used can strongly influence how much radiation they receive — even when undergoing the same test,” Einstein said. “These differences are not inevitable. In many cases, the technology and knowledge to reduce dose already exist. The challenge is ensuring that they are applied consistently and equitably across the world.” 

The authors emphasize that reducing radiation doses does not mean reducing diagnostic quality.

The IAEA’s role 

For more than six decades, the IAEA has worked with countries to strengthen the safe and effective use of medical imaging, especially where access to advanced health care is limited. The findings of this study will help guide future efforts to improve radiation safety, while expanding access to life-saving diagnostic tools.

“This research provides critical evidence that can inform national policies and international action,” said Diana Paez, Head of the Nuclear Medicine and Diagnostic Imaging Section at the IAEA. Paez was the senior investigator and co-lead of the study. “By identifying where radiation doses are highest and why, we can better target training, quality assurance programmes and technical support to help countries optimize cardiac imaging for their populations,” she added

The study also highlights the importance of investing in modern imaging equipment and ensuring that health professionals are trained to use dose-reduction techniques effectively.

“Access to diagnostic imaging is essential for tackling the growing global burden of heart disease,” said May Abdel-Wahab, Director of the IAEA Division of Human Health. “At the same time, patient safety must remain central. This study underscores the need for updated equipment, harmonized standards and improved training to expand access while reducing unnecessary radiation exposure. Building on these findings, the next step is to work with partners to provide relevant continuing medical education and long-term training.”

The study points to further opportunities for peer-to-peer knowledge sharing, development of regional and global dose reference levels, and closer collaboration between regulators, professional societies and industry.

“As the use of cardiac imaging continues to grow worldwide, ensuring that every patient benefits from the safest possible practices is both a medical and an ethical imperative,” Einstein said. “Patients deserve the highest standards of safety while undergoing testing that is critical to heart health.”

The study was funded and conducted under the IAEA coordinated research project, IAEA Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS4).