I was not asking you to Google it, I'm asking you which organizations are you getting this information from.

Department of the Navy.

You can't block radiation with steel and concrete.

You sure can. Explain how those living on a nuclear submarine, who always wear a dosimeter, consistently report radiation levels lower than what you'd get from a day at the beach or on a cross-country flight.

I wonder if you even read your source, as it repeatedly refutes that statement you use to cite it:

"For all ages combined, there were no significantly increased SRR's for leukaemia after start-up for any individual facility or for all facilities combined. The SRR's for cancers other than leukaemia among children did not vary significantly from 1.00. Similarly, the SRR's for breast cancer or thyroid cancer (all ages) did not vary significantly from 1.00 after start-up.

"If conventional estimates of the cancer risks attributed to radiation are accepted, exposure from the monitored emissions from nuclear facilities in the United States...were too small to result in detectable harm."

"The fact that significant differences were found in our survey for the period before facilities went into service illustrates the need for caution before interpreting all differences after start-up as evidence of adverse health effects attributable to operation of the facilities."

"No significantly statistical significant increases in deaths from childhood leukaemia were found."

"In combined data for all facilities, the RR of mortality from childhood leukaemia after plant start-up was 1.03, while before start-ip it was larger, 1.08. For leukaemia mortality at all ages, the RR's were .98 after start-up and 1.02 before."

"Thus, this survey did not detect any general association between residence in a county with a nuclear facility and death attributable to leukaemia or, in fact, any other form of cancer."

"We cannot conclude that nuclear facilities have not caused any cancer deaths in persons living near them. It can be concluded, however, that if nuclear facilities posed a risk to neighbouring populations, that risk was too small to be detected by a survey such as this one.

Here is the Wikipedia article on gamma radiation shielding. You'll notice that it does in fact list dirt and concrete as appropriate shielding sources.

Here's how a nuclear submarine's reactor is disposed of: they literally take the entire compartment out of the sub, encase it in concrete, then bury it in a pit. The reactor is heavily lined in lead so the concrete and dirt is pretty much entirely unnecessary, but they're very concerned about the public's view of the program so they go above and beyond what's necessary. These extra steps are due to ignorance and fear on the part of the public. The truth is that coal-burning plants and oil rigs are far more dangerous to the environment and to surrounding areas than nuclear facilities.

There's no need for all the added patronization.

I haven't been patronizing you.