It's not a contradiction that wildlife is thriving there, since, as I pointed out, humans were even worse for the wildlife. That means obviously nothing for wh

It's not a contradiction that wildlife is thriving there, since, as I pointed out, humans were even worse for the wildlife. That means obviously nothing for what effect it would have for humans themselves. I'm in contact with people from our nuclear physics faculty that are doing actual research on this, I don't need to read random articles from your generic newspapers. If I need to know something, I can just go down the hall and ask them. That the exclusion zone still has significant hot spots is what they told me. [EDIT: Your article [1] says basically the same things that I did, most notably the "Nature flourishes when humans are removed from the equation, even after the world's worst nuclear accident" and "The Chernobyl exclusion zone is still considered an unsafe region for humans due to the high levels of radiation". Thanks for that corroboration.]