UNIVERSAL RADIATION PROTECTION SYSTEM (URPS); A NATURAL GLOBAL STANDARDISED TREND FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE CONTROL IN 21st CENTURY

Breakthrough on radon individual monitoring and protecting miners by novel dual-function monitor on respirator

Breakthrough is made on inventing, producing and applying novel dual-function passive individual radon monitor in canister on respirators for radon inhalation monitoring and protecting individuals in particular miners. The rationale in this invention is having individual monitors for determining actual naturally inhaled radon by individuals and protection against particulates in one device. The monitor comprises two passive polycarbonate track detectors (PCTD); one near canister orifice (PCTD/bare), and one under activated carbon fabric (PCTD/ACF) to detect alphas of radon adsorbed on ACF carbon active sites. The PCTD/ACF detects radon with 12.7 times more sensitivity than PCTD/bare; called "Forced Amplification Factor (FAF)". Monitors were successfully operated and calibrated in laboratory radon chamber using low suction rate pump resembling human natural inhalation. The performance of monitor showed high promises for radon individual monitoring and protection. This novel development also opens new horizons for fundamental and practical scientific research to further upgrade the monitor.

Modern universal standardised trends in worker and public exposure monitoring and control in 21st century by Sohrabi URPS-based hypothesis

The Universal Radiation Protection System (URPS) was recently hypothesised by Sohrabi in order to address the many deficiencies of current radiation protection system. The ICRP system is currently practiced worldwide based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model with no supporting health risk data at low effective doses. The ICRP only considers worker occupational doses and sets dose limits only on one portion of doses a worker or public receives. The URPS hypothesis equals human heath-effect risks per unit dose either from natural or man-made sources; formulates dose limits on all integrated doses an individual receives; considers worker also a member of public; conserves 'cause-effect principle' for epidemiology risk estimation; introduces dose fractionation concept in radiation protection; introduces the 'URPS Model' for bridging LNT, hormesis and threshold models; recommends establishing 'National Patient Dose Registering System'; and defines modified/new exposure terms and definitions commensurate with URPS hypothesis, as advanced since 2014.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.