JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Issues journals
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 42-47
RADIATION MEDICINE
V.Yu. Soloviev, A.V. Barabanova, A.Yu. Bushmanov, A.K. Guskova, L.A. Ilyin
REVIEW OF THE RADIATION ACCIDENTS CONSEQUENCES IN THE FORMER USSR TERRITORY (BURNASYAN FMBC OF FMBA OF RUSSIA REGISTER DATA)
Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Astract
The paper sums up the information on radiation incidents/accidents at the former USSR territory that related to the human exposure with significant clinical effects.
Within more than 60 years (since 1949), at least 356 such radiation incidents have happened at the former USSR territory, and there were 765 victims with clinically significant health effects. This exposed cohort includes 348 patients revealed acute radiation sickness (ARS) including cases aggravated by local radiation injuries (LRI). Isolated LRI were registered in 407 victims. Totally, 71cases of early (within first 3-4 months) radiation induced fatalities were observed.
Key words: radiation accident, medical consequences, acute radiation sickness, local radiation injuries, database
REFERENSES
- Soloviev V.Yu., Ilyin L.A., Baranov A.E. et al. Radiation Accidents before and after Chernobyl. In: “One Decade after Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of the Accident”, International Conference held in Vienna, 8-12 April 1996. Vienna: IAEA. 1997. Vol. 2. P. 601-607 (In Russ.).
- Soloviev V.Yu., Ilyin L.A., Baranov A.E. et al. Early medical consequences of radiation incidents for a half century period of atomic industry activity. Bull. Atomic Energy, Sept. 2002. P. 50-52 (In Russ.).
- Soloviev V.Yu., Ilyin L.A., Baranov A.E. et al. Radiation Accidents in the Former USSR. In: Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. Second Edition. Edited by I.A. Gusev, A.K. Guskova, F.A. Mettler. CRC Press Boca Raton London, New York, Washington, D.C. 2001. P. 157-172.
- Ilyin L.A., Soloviev V.Yu. Early medical consequences of radiation incidents in the former USSR territory. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2004. Vol. 49. No. 6. P. 37-48 (In Russ.).
- Guskova A.K. Medical effects of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident: major summaries and conclusions. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2010. Vol. 55. No. 4. P. 20-31 (In Russ.).
- Soloviev V.Yu., Bushmanov A.Yu., Barabanova A.V. et al. Professional Relation Analysis of Radiation Victims in the Former USSR Territory. Medical-Biological and Social-Psychological Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations. 2011. Vol. 1. P. 5-9 (In Russ.).
- McLaughlin T., Monahan S., Pruvost K. et al. A Review of Critical Accidents. 2000 Revision. Los Alamos National Laboratory. LA-1368, May 2000. 142 p.
- Barabanova A.V., Bushmanov A.Yu., Soloviev V.Yu. Analysis of the most severe cases of man overexposure in radiation criticality accidents. Medical-Biol. and Social-Psychol. Issues of Safety in Emergency Situations. 2011. Vol. 2. P. 32-38 (In Russ.).
- Barabanova A., Wiley A., Bushmanov A. Dosedependent analysis of acute medical effects of mixed neutron-gamma radiation from selected severe 235U or 239Pu criticality accidents in USSR. United States, and Argentina. Health Phys. 2012. No. 4. P. 391-399.
- Guskova A.K., Akleev A.V., Koshurnikova N.A. The First steps to future together: Atomic Industry and Medicine on South Ural. Moscow. 2009. 305 p. (In Russ.).
- Vasilenko V.A., Efimov A.A., Stepanov I.K. et al. Radiation Safety Technology at nuclear energy installations. Ed. by V.A. Vasilenko. Saint Petersburg: NIC Morintech. 2010. 576 p. (In Russ.).
- Gogin E.E., Emelyanshenko V.M., Benetskij B.A., Filatov V.N. Combined Radiation Damages. Moscow: Izvestiya. 2000. 240 p. (In Russ.).
- Soloviev V.Yu., Baranov A.E., Barabanova A.V. et al. Acute Radiation Damages of Man Database. Message 1. Intellectual Interface as the Main Part of Support System for Diagnostic and Treatment of Acute Radiation Disease. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2011. Vol. 56. No. 3. P. 5-13 (In Russ.).
For citation: Soloviev VYu, Barabanova AV, Bushmanov AYu, Guskova AK, Ilyin LA. Review of the Radiation Accidents Consequences in the Former USSR Territory (Burnasyan FMBC of FMBA of Russia Register Data). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013;58(4):42-7.
PDF (ENG) Full-text article (in Inglish)Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 34–41
RADIATION MEDICINE
N.A. Metlyaeva
Clinico-Psychophysiological Adaptation of the Patient During Period of Acute Radiation Disease’s Remote Consequences
Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the clinical-psychophysiological state of social adaptation of the patient in the period of late consequences of acute radiation disease (ARD) of severe degree combined with very severe local radiation injuries from the non-uniform gamma and neutron irradiation.
Material and methods: M.D.A. 32 year aged, the engineer – researcher of the National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute” was accidentally exposed (May 26, 1971) to gamma neutron radiation with non-uniform absorbed dose distribution (the dose to the head 1,3 Gy, to breast 2,1Gy, to legs 16 Gy), survived the ARD of middle severity with very severe local radiation injuries with the subsequent amputation of both legs at upper level of shins in 1973.
Psychophysiological inspection of M.D.A. according to the MMPI test, Kettell’s test, Ravena, sensorimotor reactions was carried out 30 years after radiation accident and repeated in 2001, 2002, 2006, 2009 y.y. with use of the automated program and methodical Expert complex intended for research of personal properties of the patient, cognitive and intellectual features of the personality.
Results: Average profile of multilateral research of the personality (MMPI) and dynamics of indicators through the years of supervision (2001–2009) points out to the disharmonious combination of hypochondriacal, trouble - depressive with demonstrative tendencies to prevalence of a demonstration.
The assessment of efficiency of psychophysiological adaptation in comparison with 2009 indicates the increas of hypochondriacal tendencies prevalence over a demonstration with accession of high uneasiness and autistic lines at preservation of the leading role of an hypochondriacal.. The changes revealed in dynamics correspond to the specific increase weight of violations of mental adaptation, characteristic for the period of adaptation exhaustion.
Conclusions: Efficiency of psychophysiological adaptation depends not only on a dose of radiation and degree of disease, but, in a bigger measure, on premorbid features of the patient and his social and labor position. Specific M.D.A features of psychophysiological adaptation and his expressed personal lines conformed the requirements of the environment and defined his resistant, courageous behavior, long professional suitability, full-fledged life, ability hold the work account.
Key words: acute radiation disease, ionizing radiation, local radiation injuries, adaptation
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 17–22
RADIATION SAFETY
K.V. Kotenko1, A.Yu. Bushmanov1, I.E. Tyurin2, V.A. Kostylev3, S.I. Tkachev4, B.I. Dolgushin4, A.V. Boyko5, B.Ja. Narkevich3,4
To the Question about Unhealthy Condition of Work in Radiological Departments of Medical Enterprises
1. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow, Russia; 2. Russian Medical Academy of Postdiploma Education, Moscow, Russia; 3. Association of Medical Physics in Russia, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 4. N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center of RAMS, Moscow, Russia; 5. P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The problem of unhealthy condition of work in radiological departments of medical institutions of Russia has been considered. Specific examples of incorrect interpretation of this notion for the preferential age pensions setting for workers of the radiotherapy, x-ray diagnostics and nuclear medicine departments is presented. The analysis of the causes of unjustified denial of preferential pensions is accomplished. It is shown that all of them are caused by mistaken classification of personnel in the various categories in accordance with current radiation safety standards. To solve this problem it is proposed to classify not the personnel, but the working place. Such an approach complies with the recommendations of the ICRP and IAEA for the radiation protection of workers. In accordance with the purpose of preferential pensions should be linked with performance of official duties in the controlled or (and) monitored areas.
Key words: medical radiology, radiation therapy, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, unhealthy condition of work, occupational irradiation, preferential pension
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 23–33
RADIATION SAFETY
A.A. Oudalova1, S.A. Geras’kin1, R.M. Alexakhin1, S.M. Kiselev2
Current Approach to Environment Radiation Impact Assessment
1. All-Russian Institute of Agricultural Radiology and Agroecology RAAS, Obninsk, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; 2. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of FMBA, Moscow,Russia
Contents
- Introduction
- Anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches to radiation impact assessment
- Concept of reference animals and plants
- Criteria of radiation impact on biota
- No-effect exposure levels for biota
- Approaches for the environment radiation risk assessment
- Conclusion
Key words: radionuclides, biota, anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches, reference species, no-effect radiation levels, risk
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2013. Vol. 58. No. 4. P. 5-16
RADIATION SAFETY
E.M. Melikhova, E.M. Byrkina, Y.A. Pershina
On the Issue of Certain Mechanisms of Social Amplification of Risk in Media Coverage of the Fukushima NPP Nuclear Accident
Nuclear Safety Institute of the RAS, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the public perception of radiation risk and reveal mechanisms of social amplification of risk in Fukushima accident media coverage in Russia.
Material and methods: 1. An all-Russian public opinion poll about radiological consequences of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. The poll was conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation within the framework of weekly survey FOMnibus in October 2012.The questions were designed by IBRAE RAS specialists. 2. A content analysis of articles concerning the Fukushima NPP nuclear accident in two national newspapers: “Izvestiya” and “Komsomolskaya Pravda” from 11.03.2011 to 11.05.2011.
Results: More than 50 % of respondents believed that radiation from Fukushima resulted in a lot of deaths (thousands, hundreds of thousands, more than a million). Distribution of answers considering the death toll due to Fukushima’s radiation was similar to distribution of answers for the same question about Chernobyl. This distribution virtually doesn’t correlate with respondent’s age, education, income, residence or occupation.
Media coverage of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima NPP in Russian national newspapers was as extensive as the coverage of the natural disaster in Japan which killed more than 15 thousand people. Every third article about Fukushima also mentioned Chernobyl. Some other mechanisms of risk amplification were noticed as well: using of frightening words in article’s headlines, intentional and unintentional projecting of consequences of the natural disaster on the radiation accident, presence of unclear and contradictory comments on radiation hazard for Japan. The last mechanism was mainly due to the immanent problem of radiation safety standards in low dose range.
Conclusion: Development of Fukushima accident image as a global scale disaster was quite a natural phenomenon. Public prejudice against nuclear technology motivated increased media attention towards the accident. During two first weeks there was no clear and coordinated signal on international level stating that radiological consequences for Japan would be insignificant. This provided ample breeding ground for agitation on the issue in mass media. As a result, negative transfer of Chernobyl image on Fukushima has occurred. Until the key problems of timely and consistent public information on international level are not solved, we are unlikely to expect a different sequence of such accidents in future.
Key words: media content analysis, public opinion poll, Fukushima nuclear accident, risk perception, mechanisms of social amplification of risk, informing on radiation risk