Yes but the deep question is the following:

Being an animal would you rather unknowingly have you lifespan reduced by an invisible force or being killed by humans or the artificial infrastructures they build by grinding more and more natural space each year?

Unfortunately animals can't advocate for themselves so we'll have to try figure out the best answer.

And yet the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has biodiversity higher than anywhere else in Europe.

So even if nuclear power is as bad as hippies say it's still better for the environment than human civilization.

It seems that this is debatable, as a simple google search turns up completely opposite conclusions, such as this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10819027

Why not cite an actual paper instead of an interview with someone who 'feels their duty' is to tell us about the dangers of nuclear accidents?

>In contrast, our long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance. Relative abundances of elk, roe deer, red deer and wild boar within the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those in four (uncontaminated) nature reserves in the region and wolf abundance is more than 7 times higher. Additionally, our earlier helicopter survey data show rising trends in elk, roe deer and wild boar abundances from one to ten years post-accident. These results demonstrate for the first time that, regardless of potential radiation effects on individual animals, the Chernobyl exclusion zone supports an abundant mammal community after nearly three decades of chronic radiation exposures.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...

You don't need to blow a nuclear reactor for improve biodiversity, just make the place a natural park.

I admit that it's not so spectacular, but it works too, and I suspect it's cheaper.