I assume this paper is specifically referring to the effects of Strontium-90. While this is a monster paper and I did not read it in its entirety, I am confused by how they statistically separated its effects from surface test originated radionuclides. Also, the effects of Strontium-90 are pretty well known, so just going off mortality seems iffy at best. It would be very challenging to separate that causality out because of the significantly higher radionuclide creation for surface burst.
Keep in mind "fallout" from an atmospheric test is very different than a surface test. Mostly in that it is not fallout in the traditional/popular definition, but radionuclide creation of air and h2o irradiation and not particulates at the same scale as a surface burst. That is important because half-lifes. Most(99%) of the radionuclides from an atmospheric burst are gone(halved) in 8 days.
Also interesting is that Chernobyl is estimated to have introduced 5% of the global Strontium-90 population.
Keep in mind "fallout" from an atmospheric test is very different than a surface test. Mostly in that it is not fallout in the traditional/popular definition, but radionuclide creation of air and h2o irradiation and not particulates at the same scale as a surface burst. That is important because half-lifes. Most(99%) of the radionuclides from an atmospheric burst are gone(halved) in 8 days.
Also interesting is that Chernobyl is estimated to have introduced 5% of the global Strontium-90 population.