Argument: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits
Jay Lehr. "Making the Case for Nuclear Power". The Heartland Institute. February 1, 2005: "Radiation Myths Debunked. Domenici and his co-authors do an excellent job of explaining how antiquated is the concept of a 'linear no threshold' (LNT). This idea holds that even a single, microscopic leak of nuclear radiation is harmful. That standard has severely blocked energy development. He tells us:
"The LNT model forces us to regulate radiation to levels approaching one percent of natural background radiation levels despite the fact that natural background can vary by far more than a factor of three within the United States, for reasons related to altitude, building materials, geologic environment, and exposure due to plane flights, to name just a few examples.
"We now ... expect all work to be done such that the absolute minimum possible dose is delivered with virtually no reference to cost involved. We spend over $5 billion annually to clean contaminated DOE sites to levels below 5 percent of background."
Christine Todd Whitman. "The case in favor of nuclear power." Business Week. September 12, 2007: "And because of their advanced design and sophisticated containment structures, U.S. nuclear plants emit a negligible amount of radiation. Even if you lived next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still be exposed to less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles."
John McCarthy. "Nuclear Energy is the Most Certain Source." Formal.standard: "Radiation from operating nuclear reactors, uranium mining and other nuclear activities harm humanity. There is now enough experience so that the harm is extremely small compared to other human activities and especially compared to other sources of energy. It is also far below the harm from natural sources of radioactivity."