Test results in Nash County
| Result | Share | EPA guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Below 2 pCi/L | 87% | Below EPA's levels |
| 2 to 4 pCi/L | 13% | Consider fixing |
| 4 pCi/L or more | 0% | EPA recommends fixing |
What the data shows
- Higher share of high results than 0 of 99 North Carolina counties.
- Below the North Carolina rate of 23%.
- Lowest of 7 neighbouring counties.
- 13% of results at or above 2 pCi/L.
- 0.7 tests per 1,000 homes (North Carolina: 15.0).
- Median result 0.2 pCi/L: below 2 pCi/L.
How Nash County compares
Data table
| Area | Tests ≥ 4 pCi/L | Tests |
|---|---|---|
| Warren County | 43% | 82 |
| Halifax County | 42% | 59 |
| Franklin County | 19% | 204 |
| Wake County | 10% | 9,694 |
| Johnston County | 8% | 668 |
| Nash County | 0% | 30 |
| Edgecombe County | 0% | 9 |
| Wilson County | 0% | 17 |
| North Carolina (99 counties) | 23% | 73,139 |
Same source as Nash County.
What it means for your home
About 1 in 100 results in Nash County were at or above 4 pCi/L, where the EPA recommends a fix. Only a test shows your own home's level.
Levels in pCi/L from the EPA. The WHO reference level is 100 Bq/m³, about 2.7 pCi/L.
Test your home
Start with a short-term test (2–90 days) and confirm a result of 4 pCi/L or more with a second test. EPA guide
Sponsored: we earn a commission on purchases through these links. We haven't tested Airthings monitors yet.
Prefer a digital monitor? See Airthings radon monitors, or enter code radonbycounty-10OFF at their discount store for 10% off.
Fixing high radon
No local job records yet. National range: $800–$2,500, average $1,200 (EPA, 2003). Cost guide →
About this data
Source: Radon test results from laboratories (CDC Environmental Public Health Tracking Network). Period: 2008–2017. Tests: 30. Read the methodology →
These are voluntary and real-estate tests, not a random sample of homes, so they describe tested homes rather than every home.
About this page
Published by Ray Roman, editor of Radon by County. Figures are loaded from the cited source and spot-checked against it. Editorial policy · About us