Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-06-09-at-6.30.41-am

'Downwinders' ignored despite radiation fallout from US nuke tests

People in these states were told 'there is no danger' during atomic blasting that occurred from 1945-1962.

Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises


On Tuesday, Biden signed a two-year extension of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), a 1990 law that provides one-time cash benefits to radiation victims that developed serious illnesses near the Nevada Test Site during the Cold War era nuclear testing. 

The United States conducted nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests between 1945 and 1962 spreading radiation across several Western states and the South Pacific. All the while, the Atomic Energy Commission insisted to surrounding residents: “There is no danger.” After a series of lawsuits over radiation exposure and failure to warn residents, RECA was created by Congress as a “low-cost alternative to litigation.” RECA, which is also available to some uranium industry workers, has awarded over $2.5 billion in benefits to more than 39,000 claimants since 1990.

Many RECA advocates and affected communities believe a short-term extension alone is not enough. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for the extension, there is a fierce debate over expanding RECA that centers around the question of increasing eligibility for “downwinders,” or people living near test sites that continue to suffer from the legacy of nuclear testing. 

Istra Fuhrmann, the Program Assistant for Nuclear Disarmament and Pentagon Spending at the Friends Committee on National Legislation explained during a Ploughshares event on Wednesday;

“Right now it (RECA) covers some downwinders in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, but has never included equally impacted people in New Mexico, the site of the world’s very first nuclear bomb detonation, or in places like Guam, Idaho, Montana, or Colorado which we know were all highly irradiated from US nuclear testing.”

The proposed Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2021 would address some of these concerns in geographic coverage. One of the co-sponsors of the legislation in the Senate, Senator Ben Ray Lújan (D-NM) urged his colleagues to extend and expand RECA, saying “the original RECA bill failed to recognize that radioactive fallout is not restricted by state lines. Unacceptably, RECA has continually left New Mexicans out. This is wrong.” Similarly, Guam is still not included, despite the National Research Council releasing a report confirming that “Guam did receive measurable fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific,” and recommended that people living on Guam during that period be eligible for reparations under RECA. 

In addition to expanded eligibility for downwinders, the proposed RECA expansion would also triple compensation from $50,000 to 150,000, add medical benefits, increase eligibility to more uranium workers, and extend RECA until 2040. 

While it’s a relief that nuclear weapons were never used in combat between the United States and Russia, that nightmare nuclear scenario was and is a reality for some. As one downwinder observed, “they test where they think there are populations that don’t matter.” An expansion of RECA would help provide compensation for those at home most imperiled by American foreign policy abroad. 


This is a photograph of mannequins taken after the civil defense nuclear test performed with the ANNIE test in Nevada, to discern nuclear aftereffects. Civil Defense Photographs, January 1953. (National Archives)
Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.