What is the survey technique that's used to find the extent and intensity of radiological contamination?

What is the survey technique that's used to find the extent and intensity of radiological contamination?

• A. Course Leg
• B. Near side - Far Side
• C. Zig Zag
• D. Box

Answer: (A)

The main idea is to map radiological contamination with a systematic set of straight, evenly spaced passes so you can determine both how far the contamination extends and how strong it is in different areas. A Course Leg pattern does this by moving along a course made of several straight legs, with uniform spacing between them and turns at the end of each leg to start the next. This yields evenly spaced transects across the area, allowing readings to be recorded at regular intervals and compiled into a contamination map. The consistency of leg length and spacing makes it easier to identify the boundary where readings rise above background and to see how dose rates vary along each line, producing a clear picture of both extent and intensity. Other patterns can cover the area, but they often introduce gaps or irregularities in coverage, making it harder to quantify boundaries and compare data across the survey.

The main idea is to map radiological contamination with a systematic set of straight, evenly spaced passes so you can determine both how far the contamination extends and how strong it is in different areas. A Course Leg pattern does this by moving along a course made of several straight legs, with uniform spacing between them and turns at the end of each leg to start the next. This yields evenly spaced transects across the area, allowing readings to be recorded at regular intervals and compiled into a contamination map. The consistency of leg length and spacing makes it easier to identify the boundary where readings rise above background and to see how dose rates vary along each line, producing a clear picture of both extent and intensity. Other patterns can cover the area, but they often introduce gaps or irregularities in coverage, making it harder to quantify boundaries and compare data across the survey.