"Not scientifically justified".
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6946210.stm)
> But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed".
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489)
> "Many people come here expecting to see a lunar landscape, so when they see trees, and birds and a few mammals, they're surprised.
> "They think, 'ah well maybe it's not so bad'.
> "But what we're finding is that there is a significant impact on both the population and the biodiversity - the number of species - in the zone. And it's directly proportional to the level of contamination."
(But the article mentions that this is a polarised debate, and that this is only one side.)
Chernobyl Birds are Small Brained
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9387000/938...)
Insects in decline
Chernobyl is actually a wildlife wonderland now people can't live in the area. Animals don't deem to have a problem living in highly radioactive environments. They have more immediate issues than getting cancer. But for humans a nuclear meltdown is bad news.
So its not through environment that suffers on the whole, more that it is no longer suitable for humans.
But yes, the result of a nuclear disaster is much more dramatic in the short term, making it scarier than the same amount of damage that a coal powerplant dripfeeds.