Concentrating astronomically-lived sources of ionizing radiation into little pellets of nuclear fuel is not something that should be done where an accident can occur that would expose people who don't accept this risk to hazardous amounts of radiation or its sources. There are no lessons to be gleaned from Chernobyl that weren't already known.
Honestly, I didn't think nuclear energy was all that popular these days.
Honestly, though, the radiation in Pripyat isn't that dangerous, though only the most stubborn who ignore the danger and refuse to move still live there. It takes 500 milliSieverts of acute radiation dosage to cause radiation poisoning. 20 milliSieverts in a year is the acceptable chronic dosage limit for British nuclear workers. If you don't stay for long, this sort of dosage is easily avoidable.
Pripyat and numbers aside, I don't know enough on that account to provide any reasonable analysis. But what I can tell you is that my brother and his family live in Finland and the amout of deer that they can eat is limited because the deer are radiated and negative health effects have been noted as a result of their consumption. This is also true of some variety of fish, and other water and food sources.
Nuclear energy and nuclear contamination recognizes no politcal or geographic borders on its own. It just IS once it is produced and it radically will go where no man has gone before, whether we meant it that way or not.
In a large degree, it seems, nuclear power by-products and accidents violate the rights of people to deterrmine their own environmental wellness.
from where I stand