78 Olga Nikonova
victims. Later, she confessed in the interview with popular journal “Science
and Life”:
I have bitter memories of our failed attempt, when in 1970s the nuclear
physicist A.A.Moiseev and I proposed a book manuscript exploring the
radiological emergencies and urgent measures after an open land nuclear
explosion and after an industrial accident with nuclear core containment
failure. The deputy minister A.M.Burnazyan grabbed it in anger and
threw on the floor with the words—“you’re just planning this atomic
accident, are you?!”. And we were strictly prescribed to publish only
the part with description of emergency aid to the victims of military
explosions 60
Conclusion
Radiation medicine experts such as Baisogolov, Gusʹkova, Buldakov,
Emanova, Koshurnikova, etc. were talented clinicians whose development
took place throughout the process of creating the nuclear industry. The
regime of extreme secrecy, under which all doctors of the closed cities and
the nuclear enterprises were held, “deformed” their daily lives, social relations, and professional activities to the greatest extent. A significant portion
of their professional lives was “invisible” to the scientific community in the
USSR and abroad, and in the historical perspective, they were hidden from
the historiography of the atomic project and its effects and developments. In
her monograph “The Nuclear Industry of the Country through the Eyes of a
Doctor,” Angelina Gusʹkova regrets the absence of information “about medical and biological support of the industry,” among new publications: “a view
of the industry from the inside, from the point of view of ordinary people
who have experienced a complex range of feelings: pride for their involvement in the great feat and anxiety for themselves and their loved ones, the
joy of overcoming, and gratitude to those to whom they could entrust their
experiences in that difficult time of secrecy.” 61
In the post-Soviet era, the regime of secrecy has also influenced the collective memory of the events at plutonium Plant. The memoirs of the participants of the atomic project, published in Russia, form today a discourse built
on the model of glorification of the past. The texts of the physicians clearly
present the ideas of sacrifice, loyalty to professional duty, care for patients,
and the maximum efforts undertaken to save them. There are only rare emotional references to alternative interpretations. For example, Gusʹkova rejects
the claims that doctors concealed the diagnosis of radiation lesions with
“false evidence” and emphasizes that “the interaction between doctors and
employees of the plant was especially strong, of course, in acute emergency
situations. Well, at that time the doctors became one big family, selflessly
struggling day and night to save the victims.” 62 The texts of our protagonists
bear the imprint of the ambivalence of memories – a phenomenon noted by
victims. Later, she confessed in the interview with popular journal “Science
and Life”:
I have bitter memories of our failed attempt, when in 1970s the nuclear
physicist A.A.Moiseev and I proposed a book manuscript exploring the
radiological emergencies and urgent measures after an open land nuclear
explosion and after an industrial accident with nuclear core containment
failure. The deputy minister A.M.Burnazyan grabbed it in anger and
threw on the floor with the words—“you’re just planning this atomic
accident, are you?!”. And we were strictly prescribed to publish only
the part with description of emergency aid to the victims of military
explosions 60
Conclusion
Radiation medicine experts such as Baisogolov, Gusʹkova, Buldakov,
Emanova, Koshurnikova, etc. were talented clinicians whose development
took place throughout the process of creating the nuclear industry. The
regime of extreme secrecy, under which all doctors of the closed cities and
the nuclear enterprises were held, “deformed” their daily lives, social relations, and professional activities to the greatest extent. A significant portion
of their professional lives was “invisible” to the scientific community in the
USSR and abroad, and in the historical perspective, they were hidden from
the historiography of the atomic project and its effects and developments. In
her monograph “The Nuclear Industry of the Country through the Eyes of a
Doctor,” Angelina Gusʹkova regrets the absence of information “about medical and biological support of the industry,” among new publications: “a view
of the industry from the inside, from the point of view of ordinary people
who have experienced a complex range of feelings: pride for their involvement in the great feat and anxiety for themselves and their loved ones, the
joy of overcoming, and gratitude to those to whom they could entrust their
experiences in that difficult time of secrecy.” 61
In the post-Soviet era, the regime of secrecy has also influenced the collective memory of the events at plutonium Plant. The memoirs of the participants of the atomic project, published in Russia, form today a discourse built
on the model of glorification of the past. The texts of the physicians clearly
present the ideas of sacrifice, loyalty to professional duty, care for patients,
and the maximum efforts undertaken to save them. There are only rare emotional references to alternative interpretations. For example, Gusʹkova rejects
the claims that doctors concealed the diagnosis of radiation lesions with
“false evidence” and emphasizes that “the interaction between doctors and
employees of the plant was especially strong, of course, in acute emergency
situations. Well, at that time the doctors became one big family, selflessly
struggling day and night to save the victims.” 62 The texts of our protagonists
bear the imprint of the ambivalence of memories – a phenomenon noted by