The Anthropocene is described by Wikipedia as
an informal geologic chronological term for the proposed epoch that began when human activities had a significant global impact on the Earth's ecosystems
Due to its informal nature and not wide acceptance, there is often debate among adherents about when the Anthropocene is supposed to have started. Note: this is not a question about this debate.
A working group recently suggested in the article When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal (Zalasiewicz et al. 2015) has taken a different approach, looking at the effects of human activity on the chemostratigraphic record, suggesting that the Anthropocene epoch ought to have its beginning at the start of the nuclear age.
From the article's abstract:
We propose an appropriate boundary level here to be the time of the world's first nuclear bomb explosion, on July 16th 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico; additional bombs were detonated at the average rate of one every 9.6 days until 1988 with attendant worldwide fallout easily identifiable in the chemostratigraphic record. Hence, Anthropocene deposits would be those that may include the globally distributed primary artificial radionuclide signal, while also being recognized using a wide range of other stratigraphic criteria.
This question is not about the legitimacy of such an epoch, but looks at the main point of the working group's findings that radionuclides from nuclear testing may have a measurable imprint on the chemostratigraphic record.
Have there been any global correlation of artificial radionuclides in the recent chemstratigraphic record to justify this as a possible Holocene-Anthropocene boundary?