The "no man's land" DMZ between the Koreas is doing very well: http://news.discovery.com/earth/korean-dmz-teems-with-wildli...

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/06/wildlife-h...

Animals are a lot more tolerant of death and mayhem, too. For example, if radiation caused e.g. a 10% incidence of horrible birth defects, a lot of animal populations could survive that just fine, but humans would be horrified at the very idea.

Humans will survive just as well.

'Being horrified' is not a credible threat to survival.

In fact, in both cases the affected individuals of any species will die and the rest will go on.

Of course humans will survive, but they'll avoid the area if they can.

Humans deal with it just fine.

  In 2009, there were 31 countries reported in which at least 10% of children under five died.

For comparison:

  In 2011, the world average was 51 (5.1%), down from 87 (8.7%) in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_mortality

We "deal with it" in the sense that we can survive and even thrive in such an environment. But we don't "deal with it just fine" in terms of accepting it when we could easily change it by e.g. avoiding a particular area.

Despite the fact that somewhere around a third of pregnancies already miscarry. People are weird.