I've also considered these and they seem reasonable, but aren't bulletproof.

Nukes are real or else nuclear power plants wouldn't exist.

Logical fallacy. Power plants could\can exist with out the possibility of critical mass detonations. Alternate suppressed technologies cloud be used. Neuclear material is as rare as gold, so an agreement could have been made that we'll give you piles of this rare useful material.. It just needs to boil water.

They can measure the huge areas of radiation in the cities bombed. You can go measure it yourself with a Geiger counter.

Radiation can be measured in Fukoshima w/o a critical mass detonation.

Where do you think all the Fukushima radiation is coming from if human-controlled nuclear fission doesn't exist?

I'm not claiming that fission and radiation doesn't exist. I'm not even claiming that nukes don't exist.

It's an interesting idea but doesn't stand up to scrutiny imo.

I'm no so certain.

On a related tangent, I'm in the process of looking into another interesting idea. The gist of it is that radioactive materials may be less dangerous then initially claimed.
The real risk is the result of larger atoms can absorb higher energy particles (cosmic rays, etc.) which normally would pass through the body.

It was mentioned on "Unwelcomed Guests", so i have a couple of hundred (750 total) of 2-hour episodes to listen through to find the source.
/u/Robin any chance you could point me in the right direction?

Either way, there's no reason to avoid mentioning these ideas.

There shouldn't be limits on hypothetical academic questioning/discussion (the devil is in the experiments). ;-)