What is the main point of the article, and how is it supported?

Enter a comma separated list of user names.
September 5, 2016

The main point of the article is to report a conflict of opinions between the NRC and the Disaster Accountability Project on the safety of the communities surrounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC and the company running the plant, Entergy, state that those communities within a 10 mile radius are required to have emergency evacuation plans in place should a nuclear emergency occur; those outside this radius, however, are not at as large of risk. The nonprofit, however, cites the NRC's report on the Fukushima disaster, where it recommended the US citizens within 50 miles of the plant should evacuate the area, and suggests that communities within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point have specific nuclear emergency plans at hand and prepared for use. Entergy says that the radius "provides a robust safety margin", and the NRC replies to the Disaster Accountability Project's statement by saying that the incident at Fukushima is not comparable to any nuclear power cite in the US, due to the size and number of reactors in the Fukushima plant.

Creative Commons Licence
September 5, 2016

The main point was to discuss the controversy between these two, very different, safety and education zones for Nuclear disasters

Creative Commons Licence
September 4, 2016

The article shows there are no specific nuclear emergency plants or Indian Point Disaster. The arounding environment is densely populated and no material educational to resisdent. The situtation are illustrated by image and quotations of many different representors. The main point is as the title shows, to urges expanded emergency planning for Indian Point disaster. The important thing is federal government need to support and guide the state and organisations. 

Creative Commons Licence