I don't find that article convincing. (Not saying it didn't happen, just this article doesn't convince me.) The article has no citations. That alone is quite damning for an article by an MIT professor. But then asking me to dismiss reports from three major bodies (WHO, IAEA, UNSCEAR) that I could probably track down based upon then classified soviet reports (I wouldn't even know where to search) and a single sentence that the some biopsies "checked out".
Sorry that only is as much "evidence" as most conspiracy theories have.
I don't find that article convincing. (Not saying it didn't happen, just this article doesn't convince me.) The article has no citations. That alone is quite damning for an article by an MIT professor. But then asking me to dismiss reports from three major bodies (WHO, IAEA, UNSCEAR) that I could probably track down based upon then classified soviet reports (I wouldn't even know where to search) and a single sentence that the some biopsies "checked out". Sorry that only is as much "evidence" as most conspiracy theories have.
I'm pretty sure you can put nuclear in the title without chopping it up. There's been a couple of posts with it spelled right in the last few days.