In the scenario where one test shows 3.0 pCi/L and another shows 5.9 pCi/L, should the average be used for mitigation decision-making?

The correct answer is grounded in the concept of using the highest radon measurement for mitigation decision-making. In this scenario, when one test shows 3.0 pCi/L and the other shows 5.9 pCi/L, it is appropriate to consider that the higher result, 5.9 pCi/L, does not exceed twice the lower result, 3.0 pCi/L—this threshold is significant. The rationale here is based on the understanding that radon levels can fluctuate significantly, influenced by factors like weather, time of year, and changes in the living environment.

Using the average radon level for decision-making in mitigation can lead to underestimating the potential risk, especially if the highest measurement is taken as the basis for action. Since 5.9 pCi/L is still within a reasonable range compared to the lower reading, it suggests that the radon levels could vary but are not dramatically inconsistent.

The result emphasizes the importance of not just considering the average but also understanding the implications of the specific metrics provided by testing. This method aligns with best practices in radon mitigation, ensuring that actions taken will adequately address the potential health risks associated with elevated radon levels in a home or building.