In reality, as a study that was recently widely reported and covered in the press. (e.g. the Guardian and the Conversation), wildlife is flourishing within the restricted zone that surrounds the former power station. The conclusion to inevitably draw from this is that humans are worse than a nuclear accident. Radiation in high levels or ingested can be very dangerous, to both animals and humans, but at even relatively high levels (which do occur naturally in places like Cornwall, Aberdeen and Ramsar in Iran) radiation isn’t as much of a problem as many people believe. Years of fears about Hiroshima have led us to fear radiation, but it occurs naturally all around us every day. It’s only natural to transfer those same fears and misunderstanding to the impact of radiation on animals.
There have been studies in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, most notably from Anders Møller, that have shown negative effects. But the overwhelming evidence is that the lack of humans, who destroy habitats, hunt and spray pesticides and herbicides, is a much bigger positive than the negative of radiation. This should be a wakeup call to governments around the world, not only for the preservation of terrestrial ecosystems but for marine ecosystems as well. Having large areas of land, big enough to allow viable populations of predators and prey, and leaving them almost completely free of human influence is good for biodiversity. This is going to become increasingly important as pressure for land intensifies with growing populations. Increasing the connectivity of small reserves and parks and maintaining the greenbelts around urban areas in countries like the UK are crucial to maintaining our native wildlife.
I think that in the long run this type of research will do the conservation movement a lot of good, as the idea that we are worse for the environment than a nuclear disaster is a strong one that sticks in the mind.