Nukes have been a small hobby of mine. Hey, I like things that go boom! and I like physics. (I know, weird.)

Anyway, I could help in providing a list of nuclear tests, but there's some points to ponder.

First, not all tests went boom. Some were fizzles with little or no yield. Others were safety tests that were not supposed to have any yield but a few failed and had some yield.

Shouldn't there be a lower limit on yield for this comparison? Small yield weapons I would not expect to have any seismic influence.

A further confounding factor is that some tests were high altitude or even space. Should these be excluded since they would have no shock wave coupling with the earth?

Finally, since the vast majority of nuclear tests were conducted in confined areas (ie Nevada Test Site) would those tests be expected to have an effect on quakes far away? For example, Sumatra? I'd expect more effect closer to ground zero, in this example California.

And as Roger already pointed out, the Aleutian tests were minimally worrisome due the presence of the subduction zone, but obviously had no immediate effect.

Brian