Let's start at the beginning. The paper talks about evidence for nuclear explosions (the word "weapon" isn't mentioned as far as I can see), and then discusses

Let's start at the beginning. The paper talks about evidence for nuclear explosions (the word "weapon" isn't mentioned as far as I can see), and then discusses natural nuclear reactors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor The author then argues that the evidence seems to fit an atmospheric explosion better, for example an asteroid that exploded in mid-air like in Tunguska. Or that the radioactive stuff just got there in this pattern through geological activities and other processes. Did I miss the part where he talks about nuclear weapons or sterilization?