[sandworm101]

It's far more complicated than a simple TNT equation. If the nasty stuff is the radiation, that isn't directly proportional to the size of the explosion. Each test was unique, with specific bomb designs that produced more or less proportional radiation. Later bomb designs were in fact much 'cleaner' in that they produced proportionally less radiation than an equivalent number of "Hiroshimas". The largest bomb ever tested (the russian "czar bomb") was also likely the cleanest, producing the least radiation per kiloton. (Interesting fact: The czar design was changed at the last minute to reduce its yield and radiation potential in light of the american tests.)

And even the total amount of radiation is also beside the point. The real nasty is the amount of radiation dropped onto and into people, the fallout. Bombs high in the atmosphere produce far less fallout than those on the surface or close thereto. Then one can get into square-area v volume maths that explain why fallout in rain (concentrated into 2d on the surface) is so much more deadly than fallout dissolved in ocean water (diluted into a 3d ocean). This is an important distinction when talking about the post-tsunami radiation events.

If was a horrible series of tests with little regard for local inhabitants, but that is no excuse for false equivalences.