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
Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one
Top photo credit: U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper speaks to guests at the IISS Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, November 17, 2023. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one

Middle East

If accounts of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities this past month are to be believed, the president’s initial impulse to stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict failed to survive the prodding of hawkish advisers, chiefly U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Kurilla.

With Kurilla, an Iran hawk and staunch ally of both the Israeli government and erstwhile national security adviser Mike Waltz, set to leave office this summer, advocates of a more restrained foreign policy may understandably feel like they are out of the woods.

keep readingShow less
Putin Trump
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the President of the Russian Federation) and Donald Trump (US Southern Command photo)

How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire

Europe

In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We're going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don't have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House reporters
U.S. President Donald Trump responds to questions from reporters on the South Lawn on July 11, 2025. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)

Russia sanctions & new weapons, is Trump stuck in Groundhog Day?

Europe

President Trump finds himself in a rerun of his first term on Ukraine policy. Declawed by lawmakers in D.C. and forced to push policies that worsen the U.S. relationship with Russia.

He is expected today to announce that the U.S. will be sending more advanced patriot missile batteries to Ukraine — via NATO member countries, which will be paying for it.

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.