Why not? Take a look at this

https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/out-of-th...

https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-are-worse-rad...

Well, I believe the factual content of what you said, I'm just surprised you'd seriously use this as an argument in favour of nuclear power, because the fact that wildlife thrived is so intimately connected with the fact that a nuclear meltdown happened.

If radiation in the exclusion zone causes less damage than human habitation, what is the argument for maintaining the exclusion zone?

Bearing in mind that coal plants have a lot of negative health effects, so there needs to be an argument that life in the exclusion zone would be detectable worse than life near a coal plant.

Is it the kind of wildlife we want to be reproducing?

Is it the kind of wildlife you want as a pet?

Is it the kind of wildlife you want to eat?

No, this is not actually a good thing.

By definition you don't want wildlife as a pet. Is there a reason you think this is the "wrong" type of wildlife?

Yes, because it is extremely sick, and their DNA is severely damaged. it would be a very bad thing to pass that on to future generations

That turns out not to be the case.

Chernobyl is an example of what Bruce Sterling calls an "involuntary wildlife preserve". He didn't claim that was a good thing, of course...