First sentence of the accompanying text:
"The efforts of thousands of workers and billions of dollars spent on decontaminating the contaminated areas are beginning to bear fruit."
This is hardly fearmongering.
Also from the article:
"That is why it’s important to document the consequences of a nuclear disaster. Many of the devastated, abandoned and contaminated buildings and interiors I have photographed no longer exist. They have been cleaned and restored or demolished. This is obviously right and necessary. My task, however, is different. I want to preserve as many testaments to the nuclear disaster and human tragedy as possible. Despite eight years having passed, there is still a huge number here, particularly in the red zones — the most radioactive ones that are still closed and where residents are not allowed to return. Although I could be wrong, there is no indication they ever will. Let them serve as a warning to future generation so they do not forget what the careless handling of nuclear energy can lead to."
This seems very right and proper. The author does not criticize nuclear energy as such. His aim was to "document the consequences", he has done so diligently and without "fearmongering". I am actually pro nuclear energy, but if you object to this - you are unreasonably complacent.