You don't really get birth defects from radiation exposure unless the woman is pregnant at the time of exposure. Then it depends on the level and the stage of development. 50 mrem per month and 500 mrem for the term of the pregnancy is considered safe and that's a conservative safety margin. Most studies from weapons exposure is long term with increase cancer rates.
Chronic and acute exposed has different biological effcts.
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.dir/data.dir/AtomicBombSurvivorsData.htm#faq1
And then Chernobyl.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
The thing is, if you actually take the time to read all the links you provided they actually don't paint the same picture as the nuclear fallout post-apocalyptic scenario, both Chernobyl, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima, are for the most part back to normal levels of radiation and the actual number of people who had higher risk of cancer or any effects is actually quite low.
Even in your links its states there is a common misconception with the number of deaths and effects of the radiation, examples from your link:
"Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found,
nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure."
"
Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas."
"
The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers, some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed."
Same thing is found with studies of Japanese, it just doesn't fit with the myth of nuclear fallout permanently ruining the landscape, Japan and most of the area other than the immediate surrounding area of Chernobyl accident are no longer any more radioactive than anywhere else. And the studies I read stress the fact that public perception doesn't fit the data. The evidence can only point to a slight increase in rate of cancer and Leukemia, which may just be an effect of higher rate of detection anyways.
I'm not denying radioactivity exists, I am pointing out that nuclear bombs and nuclear fallout don't appear to have the effect that movies and TV portray, and in fact there isn't any real difference between the cities that got firebombed and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no difference between Chernobyl and another industrial toxic waste accident, in both cases people think it was way worse than it was because of the way the story was presented by media and not because of a study of the facts.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160811120353.htm - somewhat recent summation of long term studies of Japanese survivors
"But public perception of the rates of cancer and birth defects among survivors and their children is
greatly exaggerated when compared to the reality revealed by comprehensive follow-up studies."
https://atomicinsights.com/galen-winsor-asks-who-owns-the-plutonium-how-much-is-it-worth/ - here an article where more guys other than Galen Winsor mention the exaggeration of the danger of radioactivity and touches upon the monetary interests
I would have to say though you were right about something, after reading more and seeing more evidence, I have to still side with Galen Winsor and I don't think Nuclear bombs are real, I do appreciate you engaging in a thoughtful manner though, and if you have some kind of direct evidence of nuclear bombs or more compelling evidence I am interested to see it. Or if you have a more meaningful critique other than character assassination for Galen Winsor, then I am open to hear it.
