We know about Chernobyl and Las Alamos: the lasting effects of radiation on the Saharan Tuareg in the desert

Between 1960 and 1966, seventeen nuclear detonations took place deep in Algeria’s Sahara Desert — first at Reggane and later in the Hoggar Mountains near In Ekker. Conducted under French supervision during the Cold War, these experiments were designed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Their physical and political fallout is still with us.

The nuclear testing was not done in a vacuum and like at Las Alamos in New Mexico it affected the people nearby. In Algeria that was the Tuareg people. Others affected with the Berber-speaking nomadic group of the Sahara, whose territory spans large parts of southern Algeria; The Kel Ahaggar community which is a specific Tuareg confederation located in the Hoggar Mountains region off Algeria, and other local residents.

While less clearly documented in accessible sources, sites of the nuclear testing such as In Ekker and the surrounding desert zone indicate that French military, local manual workers, nomadic pastoralists, and their settlement communities were exposed.

A peer-reviewed study in Applied Radiation and Isotopes found measurable levels of plutonium and other radionuclides remaining at former test sites decades after the final detonation. A broader review of global weapons tests published in Environmental Sciences Europe confirms that radioactive contamination from Sahara tests persists in soils and fractured rock and can be re-mobilized by desert winds. If England gets locusts blown to its shores from Egypt, imagine how far radioactive dust can travel.

Algeria declared independence from France in 1962, but the Évian Accords that ended open conflict also granted France continued access to certain military and research sites in the Sahara for up to five years after independence. These terms were negotiated between the French state and Algeria’s provisional government (the FLN leadership at the time). This means the testing program after 1962 did not happen in a legal vacuum: it was authorized in writing by the Algerian Government, and it served strategic interests on both sides at the time. There was a power imbalance, giving the Algerians not much choice.

For France, the Sahara was a proving ground for weapons credibility as the Americans did in the deserts around the Los Alamos nuclear testing facility, established in 1943 as Project Y, a top-secret site for designing nuclear weapons under the Manhattan Project during World War II.  For Algeria’s new leadership, the agreement helped secure full political recognition, state continuity, and material support at a fragile moment of transition to their autonomy. The cost of that compromise was largely borne by remote southern communities, as is the case in many of today’s superpowers.

Some of the underground nuclear shots tested at In Ekker were supposed to be fully contained. In reality, not all of them were. One detonation, known as the Béryl Incident (1 May 1962), vented radioactive dust and hot debris into the open air when the test tunnel’s seal failed. French military personnel, engineers, and nearby residents were all exposed –– some highly contaminated. Decades later, radiation dose reconstructions and site surveys continue to document contamination in the blast zones and surrounding scrap fields.

People living downwind describe long-term health problems, loss of grazing land, restrictions around traditional water sources, and the normalization of sickness with no official acknowledgment. The same which happend in Love Canada, USA, a site I visited in the 90s. This happens in Turkey today where the government fails to recognize cancer clusters in industrialized zones outside the city. One scientist we interviewed was threatened to be put in jail if he continued his scientific research on the issue.

French veterans of the Sahara tests have in some cases received recognition and partial compensation under later French law, while Algerian civilians have struggled to access comparable review or support. Algeria, like most countries in North Africa and the Middle East are about 30 to 40 years behind on environmental issues and research. It’s not so easy to point a finger and find a villain. Algeria, 65 years on does not have a great environmental record.

Algeria faces a complex mix of environmental and pollution challenges that extend from its Mediterranean coast to its Saharan interior. The most pressing issue is air pollution in major cities such as Algiers, Oran, and Constantine, where outdated vehicles, industrial emissions, and open waste burning raise fine particulate (PM2.5) levels to more than three times the World Health Organization’s recommended limit.

Water contamination is another critical concern. Much of Algeria’s wastewater is released untreated into rivers and the sea, carrying agricultural runoff, heavy metals, and plastic debris. Coastal zones near industrial centers like Skikda and Annaba are among the most polluted in the southern Mediterranean, threatening fisheries and tourism. Groundwater in rural regions also suffers from nitrate and pesticide infiltration.

Inland, desertification and soil erosion are advancing due to overgrazing, deforestation, and a warming climate. The country loses thousands of hectares of forest annually to drought and wildfires, despite new reforestation and water-retention projects.

Finally, oil and gas extraction along with urban waste management gaps add to Algeria’s pollution load. While national plans now emphasize renewable energy, afforestation, and stricter environmental monitoring, progress remains uneven. The challenge is balancing economic growth with sustainable resource stewardship. With an estimated 2,400 billion cubic metres of proven conventional natural gas reserves, Algeria ranks 10th globally and first in Africa. It also has the third largest untapped unconventional gas resources in the world.

Algeria has 12.2 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, ranking it 15th in the world and third in Africa. Currently, all oil and gas reserves are located on land and it is a major contributor to oil pollution in the Mediterranean Sea. Algeria is exploring new possibilities for oil and gas extraction, including offshore and shale gas opportunities.

The legacy of Sahara nuclear testing is often framed as a simple one-direction story, but the reality is more entangled. France designed, managed, and detonated the devices. Oversight after 1966 has involved both governments and, at times, international agencies. What has not happened at scale is transparent, long-term medical screening for affected communities and a full clean-up of contaminated waste that was left in place.

But putting it in scale, Algeria has a lot of environmental accounting to do. Just blaming France or “colonial” powers is short-sighted and distracting, absolving locals from trying to better on its own locally-made problems due to extremely high levels of corruption. At Green Prophet we zoom out and try to show you the wider story to issues that affect every human on this planet.

Want to learn more about the environment in Algeria? Start here:

This stunning ancient citadel in the Sahara Desert has a mysterious past

How Islamic-era agriculture points way to sustainable farming methods

Algerian Judoka expected to defeat an Israeli player before match

Algeria’s Controversial Love Lock Bridge Rebrands Suicide

Aerodynamic ARPT Headquarters Diverts Algiers’ Hot Desert Winds Naturally

Oil fracking protestors in Algeria rise up against their regime, Total and Shell

Algeria to Invest $20 billion USD in renewable energy

Top wildlife destinations in North Africa (includes Algeria)

Climate Change Contributing to Mali-Algeria Conflict

Algeria Archives – all articles on Algeria

The post The little known nuclear testing sites used by France in Algeria’s Sahara Desert appeared first on Green Prophet.

When Israel launched a surprise, precision strike wave against Iran’s nuclear and other essential infrastructure on June 13, 2025, the world’s attention turned not only to the military, political, and human fallout but also to the environmental risks. Iran and its leaders immediately accused Israel of committing environmental war crimes. The supporting evidence for this claim was fires at oil depots, fuel deposits being damaged, and the targeting of nuclear research and development facilities.

From Israel’s perspective, these accusations are just distractions and diversions to ignore a larger truth: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a larger and longer-lasting environmental threat to the Middle East than Israel’s defensive measures ever will.  

Israel has long believed and employed the practice of stopping existential threats before they come to fruition. This doctrine led Israel to conduct strikes, similar to its 2025 attack, on nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. While both operations were controversial at the same time, which seems to be the trend with Israel’s attacks, they are now acknowledged to have prevented potentially worse, specifically environmental, outcomes.

In June 2025, Israel used the same logic when it attacked Iran. Nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, among other infrastructure, where uranium enrichment along with other nuclear activities were targeted. Israel’s goal was clear: cripple Iran’s nuclear program before it had operational weapons. For Israeli leaders, the alternative to not attacking was unthinkable. An Iran with nuclear capabilities would not only destabilize regional politics but also risk a major humanitarian and environmental disaster.  

See Related Article: Experts at US-Arab Policy Conference debate Mideast’s future as global energy supplier

Critics of the attack warned and cited instances of radioactive leaks. However, agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed the lack of leaks and are also continuing to measure sites to ensure no radioactive increase. Chemical exposure is the real environmental danger. Chemicals used in enrichment that are not cared for and stored properly can become toxic and can potentially be inhaled or contaminate groundwater. The underground nature of Iran’s nuclear development facilities helped decrease the chance of air exposure. Additionally, Israeli military planners deliberately designed strikes to maximize damage to infrastructure and minimize environmental fallout. Israel’s precision proves that Israel recognizes environmental safety even amid war. 

Iran’s environmental department has accused Israel of targeting fossil-fuel storage, oil depots, industrial plants, and nuclear facilities with the intention of causing environmental destruction. Tehran’s state media highlighted fires at oil depots and refineries, claiming that the attacks and subsequent destruction created toxic air and soil contamination. Israel rejects these accusations. Its view is that the strikes were carefully planned and carried out with precision to undermine Iran’s economic, military, and nuclear programs.

By crippling key infrastructure, Israel seeks to cut off financial and physical resources as well as the support they provide for Iran’s proxies. From Israel’s perspective, Iran is attempting to weaponize environmental justice as propaganda while ignoring the larger risks that they are creating by their national ambitions. 

See Related Article: Iran is sinking in sinkholes from overwatering

While Iran points towards oil fires and chemical leaks, Israel argues that the long-term environmental risks of a nuclear Iran far outweigh the immediate impact of its targeted strikes. Consider the following situations:

• Nuclear accident: Poorly secured and contained enrichment facilities could leak uranium into soil, water, and other resources
• Regional proliferation: If Iran secures nuclear weapons, other nations in the region may pursue their programs in response, exponentially increasing the risk of accident and sabotage
• Terrorist access: With Iranian proxies active across the Middle East, material or weapons could fall into the hands of groups with no regard for environmental or human safety
• Regional instability: A nuclear Iran would increase the likelihood of war, where nuclear attacks would devastate the environment 

For Israel, these risks make preventative action not only the way to save human life but also to save the environment from potential destruction.

Iran’s accusations of environmental war crimes fit into a broader narrative attempting to portray Israel as reckless and destructive. But Israel points out key hypocrisies. Iran’s secrecy, blocking inspectors from accessing facilities, Iran’s industrial pollution, and their weaponization of outrage shift their malpractice onto Israel. 

Israel frames its strategy around an ethical argument: to allow Iran to continue unchecked would not only be a gamble in terms of Israeli lives but also with the environmental health of the Middle East as a whole. 

The strikes on Iran have sparked fierce debate, but from Israel’s perspective, the choice was easy: either accept the risks of a nuclear Iran or act decisively to stop it.

Israel chose action, not out of disregard for the environment, but because it views preventive strikes as the lesser of two ecological evils. The immediate damage pales in comparison to the devastation a nuclearized Iran could unleash.

For Israel, protecting the land, air, and water of the Middle East means ensuring that a nuclear catastrophe never becomes part of the region’s future.

The post How Israel’s Strikes Avert Iran’s Environmental Threat appeared first on Green Prophet.

There was much disagreement around the dinner table the other night about whether or not Israel will be obliterated if Iran drops a nuclear bomb. Will there be something to spare? Should Israelis expect a bomb to melt the entire country or would a bomb just wipe out a small square kilometer of land? My husband says the actual direct impact of a nuclear bomb is not that severe.

Raised in Canada during the cold war between the USA and Russia I faced many a sleepless nights wondering if there was a Russian bomb targeting my parent’s home in suburbia. According to my Grade 4 teacher, Mr. Brich, there was. This trauma has left me with the notion that nuclear bombs melt everything within 50 miles of their wake. Who was right? Me or my sometimes more logical better half? I turned to the internet to see if I could find out. Turns out there is an app which lets you nuclear bomb your city. The results are grim. Below I bomb a few Middle Eastern cities to document the extent of the damage.

It makes mutant butterflies look like child’s play.

Since it’s not really known what kind of bombs either Israel or Russia possess, I chose a 50 mt Russian bomb, the Tsra Bomba (for the memories) and the results don’t look great.

The inner circle is complete annihilation, and the outer rings represent instant fire, persistant fires, and radiation overload. See below in the maps for what happens to Beirut, Jeddah, Tehran, Amman, Cairo, and Istanbul. Will you survive the blast?

Below is the Tsar Bomba bomb dropped on Tehran. Say bye, bye to the city center, and the cities of Karaj, Eslam Shahr, and Shahr-e-Qods.

If you live in Beirut, say bye, bye to the city and the Sidon District. The bomb will even impact nearby Syria.

Now for the Turks. If you live in Istanbul, say goodbye forever to your beautiful city. It will be gone, as well as the cities of Sisli, Esenyurt, and Gebze.

What happens to Cairo makes us especially sad because of the Giza pyramids.

If you live in Damascus your lovely city will be gone.

Effects of a nuclear bomb dropped on Amman will be felt directly in Madaba, and Jarash, and the top of the Dead Sea. Triggering devastating earthquakes?

We have gone through this exercise in tongue and cheek. We wish for no nuclear weapons to be dropped on any city, people, environment or animals.

Update Aug 10, 2020- the app is no longer online. Given the horrible humanitarian disaster in Beirut, we hope no one will need to play around with bombing games. 

The post Will Your City Survive A Nuclear Bomb? This App Gives The Answer appeared first on Green Prophet.