In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.
So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?
No. She exposed herself to it by carrying radium around in her pockets.
Gee, so radiation can come from places other than nukes. Fascinating.
Right. And the result was substantially different than what you get when a bomb is detonated. In the Chernobyl incident radio active substances like cesium 137 and iodine 131 were released.
Right, because actual nuclear accidents involving uranium and plutonium produce different products than what was detected at supposed "nuclear bomb" sites. Now we're getting somewhere.
Because you are wrong. There are different types and profiles of radiation release. Atomic/nuclear bombs are unique in the extreme. No other process/event produces a radiation release profile like a nuclear bomb. Nothing.
And this is where you encounter the propaganda. You see, you haven't verified that a nuclear bomb actually produced any of the recorded substances. All you can do is take the government's records at face value. You can go to Chernobyl (well, now is a bad time) and actually verify what happened (as many documentaries have done!).
All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.
Go back and read your OP. "It's Fake!" is all it says. No evidence whatsoever. Typical flat earth "theory" there.
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.