US dataswitch to UK
Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health
collecting samples of gases, soils, water, calibrating microscopes or testing instruments and providing information or technical or programing assistance to government representatives. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: recording test data and preparing reports. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Perform laboratory and field tests to monitor the environment and investigate sources of pollution, including those that affect health, under the direction of an environmental scientist, engineer, or other specialist. May collect samples of gases, soil, water, and other materials for testing. The job title says “environmental science”, “protection technicians” or “including health”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But environmental science and protection technicians, including health is not one task. It is 25 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 25%
- changing shape
- 25%
- staying human
- 50%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 37 out of 100 (32–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 25 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for environmental science and protection technicians, including health is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
6 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Recording test data and preparing reports
This is reading one thing and writing another: test data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Record test data and prepare reports, summaries, or charts that interpret test results.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning test results into tables, charts and a written summary is well-suited computer work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining files, such as hazardous waste databases, chemical usage data
This is reading one thing and writing another: files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain files, such as hazardous waste databases, chemical usage data, personnel exposure information, or diagrams showing equipment locations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping waste databases, exposure records and site diagrams current is routine data management.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing statistical analysis of environmental data
This is reading one thing and writing another: statistical analysis of environmental data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Perform statistical analysis of environmental data.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Statistical analysis of environmental readings is a standard, fully documented computing job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing testing procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop testing procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Test procedures follow published standards, so drafting them is well within reach with expert checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
6 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Developing or implementing programs for monitoring of environmental pollution or radiation
The software now makes the first pass at programs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or implement programs for monitoring of environmental pollution or radiation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing a monitoring program follows documented methods, though putting it in place means visiting sites.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Discussing test results and analyses with customers
The software now makes the first pass at test results, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Discuss test results and analyses with customers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining results clearly is easy to draft, but customers hearing bad news usually want a person to talk to.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing information or technical or programing assistance to government representatives
The software now makes the first pass at information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide information or technical or program assistance to government representatives, employers, or the general public on the issues of public health, environmental protection, or workplace safety.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Explaining public health and safety rules is well-documented information work that drafts clearly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
13 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution
This work happens in the physical world: samples of gases, soils, water, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Collect samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater, or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Collecting soil, water, air or asbestos samples means being at the site with the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing samples or photomicrographs for testing and analysis
This work happens in the physical world: samples, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare samples or photomicrographs for testing and analysis.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Preparing samples and slides is careful hands-on laboratory work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting workplaces to ensure the absence of health and safety hazards
This work happens in the physical world: workplaces, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect workplaces to ensure the absence of health and safety hazards, such as high noise levels, radiation, or potential lighting hazards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Spotting noise, lighting or radiation hazards means walking the workplace with instruments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 15 tasks
Calculating amount of pollutant in samples or computing air pollution or gas flow in industrial processes
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: amount of pollutant in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Calculate amount of pollutant in samples or compute air pollution or gas flow in industrial processes, using chemical and mathematical formulas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Applying published chemical and flow formulas to sample data is exactly the sort of calculation software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analyzing potential environmental impacts of production process changes
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: potential environmental impacts of production process changes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Analyze potential environmental impacts of production process changes, and recommend steps to mitigate negative impacts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Assessing likely environmental effects of a process change and suggesting fixes is documented analysis AI handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Making recommendations to control or eliminate unsafe conditions at workplaces or public facilities
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at recommendations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Make recommendations to control or eliminate unsafe conditions at workplaces or public facilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Matching hazards to documented control measures and writing recommendations is work AI does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Distributing permits, closure plans or cleanup plans
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at permits, closure plans or cleanup plans, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Distribute permits, closure plans, or cleanup plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Issuing permits and plans is mostly document handling with a clear process behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining amounts and kinds of chemicals to use in destroying harmful organisms or removing impurities from purification systems
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at amounts, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Determine amounts and kinds of chemicals to use in destroying harmful organisms or removing impurities from purification systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Dosage calculations follow published tables, but a qualified person must sign off on chemical use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Initiating procedures to close down or fine establishments violating environmental or health regulations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for procedures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Initiate procedures to close down or fine establishments violating environmental or health regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Only an authorized officer can legally shut down or fine a business, though the paperwork drafts easily.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or implementing site recycling or hazardous waste stream programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: site, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop or implement site recycling or hazardous waste stream programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: A recycling or waste program can be designed on paper, but setting it up means working with a real site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring emission control devices to ensure they are operating properly and comply with state and federal regulations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: emission control devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor emission control devices to ensure they are operating properly and comply with state and federal regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Remote readings can be checked from a screen, but confirming the device works needs someone at it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Weighing, analyzing or measuring collected sample particles, such as lead, coal dust or rock
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: collected sample particles, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Weigh, analyze, or measure collected sample particles, such as lead, coal dust, or rock, to determine concentration of pollutants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The concentration maths is easy, but weighing and measuring the particles is bench work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining and analyzing material for presence and concentration of contaminants
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: material, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Examine and analyze material for presence and concentration of contaminants, such as asbestos, using variety of microscopes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Image analysis helps identify fibers, but someone has to prepare and work the microscope.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating hazardous conditions or spills or outbreaks of disease or food poisoning
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: hazardous conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Investigate hazardous conditions or spills or outbreaks of disease or food poisoning, collecting samples for analysis.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Desk research helps trace a spill or outbreak, but the samples have to be gathered on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing activities of workers in laboratory
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: activities of workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Direct activities of workers in laboratory.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing lab staff depends on being present and knowing how each person works.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Calibrating microscopes or testing instruments
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: microscopes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Calibrate microscopes or test instruments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Calibrating instruments requires hands on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting sanitary conditions at public facilities
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: sanitary conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Inspect sanitary conditions at public facilities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking hygiene at a facility means physically inspecting it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Setting up equipment or stations to monitor and collect pollutants from sites
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Set up equipment or stations to monitor and collect pollutants from sites, such as smoke stacks, manufacturing plants, or mechanical equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Installing monitoring equipment on stacks or plant requires being there to fit it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $55,090a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 34,670in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: test data in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: recording test data and preparing reports and maintaining files, such as hazardous waste databases. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where samples of gases, soils, water get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Recording test data and preparing reports is going; collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution is not.
So, given all that: 25% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 25% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 50% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 25 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles collecting samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater or asbestos products to conduct tests on pollutant levels or identify sources of pollution, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to environmental science and protection technicians, including health (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was environmental engineering technologists and technicians: only about 12% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 37/100 here, with only 25% of the task list in the top band, and “collect samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater, or asbestos products to…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Environmental Engineering Technologists and Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already collect samples of gases, soils, water, industrial wastewater, or asbestos products to conduct…, and their equivalent is to decontaminate or test field equipment used to clean or test pollutants from soil…. Across both published task lists that is about 12% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Geological Technicians, Except Hydrologic Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare samples or photomicrographs for testing and analysis, and their equivalent is to collect or prepare solid or fluid samples for analysis. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 6,980 of those jobs against 34,670 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats.
Occupational Health and Safety Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect workplaces to ensure the absence of health and safety hazards, and their equivalent is to test workplaces for environmental hazards. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 25% of its task weight, across 25 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Environment professionals is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Environment professionals and Laboratory technicians. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for environmental science / protection technicians / including health, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 25% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for environmental science / protection technicians / including health. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for environmental science / protection technicians / including health launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 25 official task statements scored for Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health (United States, SOC 19-4042), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 37 out of 100 (range 32–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Calculate amount of pollutant in samples or compute air pollution or gas flow in industrial processes, using chemical and mathematical formulas” (88/100, very high); “Perform statistical analysis of environmental data” (88/100, very high); “Record test data and prepare reports, summaries, or charts that interpret test results” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health” stay human?
- About 50% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Set up equipment or stations to monitor and collect pollutants from sites, such as smoke stacks, manufacturing plants, or mechanical equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Prepare samples or photomicrographs for testing and analysis” (0/100, minimal); “Inspect sanitary conditions at public facilities” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 50% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 25 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.