US dataswitch to UK
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors
investigating industrial accidents, preparing and writing reports detailing specific fire prevention and protection issues, conducting or directing testing of air quality and consulting with authorities to discuss safety regulations and to recommend changes. 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: maintaining, and applying knowledging of current policies. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Promote worksite or product safety by applying knowledge of industrial processes, mechanics, chemistry, psychology, and industrial health and safety laws. Includes industrial product safety engineers. The job title says “health”, “safety engineers”, “except mining safety engineers” or “inspectors”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection. 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 health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors is not one task. It is 41 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 26%
- changing shape
- 18%
- staying human
- 57%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 37 out of 100 (31–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 41 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 health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors 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.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- 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
9 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.
Maintaining, and applying knowledging of current policies
This is reading one thing and writing another: current policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain and apply knowledge of current policies, regulations, and industrial processes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 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 up with regulations and processes is reading and recall, which AI is very good at.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Recommending procedures for detection, prevention and elimination of physical, chemical or other product hazards
This is reading one thing and writing another: procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend procedures for detection, prevention, and elimination of physical, chemical, or other product hazards.” (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: Recommending hazard controls draws on well documented standards AI can apply to a described situation.
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.
Reporting or reviewing findings from accident investigations
This is reading one thing and writing another: findings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Report or review findings from accident investigations, facilities inspections, or environmental testing.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Writing up and reviewing findings is report work AI drafts to a usable standard.
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.
Evaluating potential health hazards or damage that could occur from product misuse
This is reading one thing and writing another: potential health hazards in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate potential health hazards or damage that could occur from product misuse.” (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: Thinking through how a product could be misused draws on documented cases and standards.
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
7 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.
Advising architects, builders and other construction personnel on fire prevention equipment and techniques and on fire code and standard interpretation and compliance
The software now makes the first pass at architects, 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: “Advise architects, builders, and other construction personnel on fire prevention equipment and techniques and on fire code and standard interpretation and compliance.” (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: Fire code guidance is well documented, though builders act on advice from a trusted expert.
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.
Reviewing building plans to verify compliance with fire code
The software now makes the first pass at plans, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Review building plans to verify compliance with fire code.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking plans against fire code is structured document review, signed by a qualified reviewer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating product designs for safety
The software now makes the first pass at product designs, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate product designs for safety.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design safety review is document work, though an engineer's judgment carries the responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Staying human
25 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.
Conducting or coordinating worker training in areas
This work happens in the physical world: worker, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct or coordinate worker training in areas such as safety laws and regulations, hazardous condition monitoring, and use of safety equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course material is easy to draft, but running safety training means standing in front of workers.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting buildings or building designs to determine fire protection system requirements and potential problems in areas
This work happens in the physical world: buildings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect buildings or building designs to determine fire protection system requirements and potential problems in areas such as water supplies, exit locations, and construction materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out fire protection needs means inspecting the building as well as the drawings.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research to evaluate safety levels for products
This work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct research to evaluate safety levels for products.” (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: Safety evaluation needs real testing of the product, not just analysis of documents.
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.
Show the other 31 tasks
Compiling, analyzing and interpreting statistical data related to occupational illnesses and accidents
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: statistical data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Compile, analyze, and interpret statistical data related to occupational illnesses and accidents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Compiling and interpreting illness and accident statistics is data analysis software does very 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 4/4.
Preparing and writing reports detailing specific fire prevention and protection issues
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: reports detailing specific fire prevention in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare and write reports detailing specific fire prevention and protection issues, such as work performed, revised codes or standards, and proposed review schedules.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Fire prevention reports are structured writing AI drafts to a usable standard.
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.
Participating in preparation of product usage and precautionary label instructions
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: preparation of product usage in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in preparation of product usage and precautionary label instructions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Drafting warning labels and usage instructions is standardized writing 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.
Reviewing employee safety programs to determine their adequacy
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: employee safety programs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review employee safety programs to determine their adequacy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Reviewing a written safety program against requirements is document work AI does capably.
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.
Interpreting safety regulations for others interested in industrial safety
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: safety regulations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interpret safety regulations for others interested in industrial safety, such as safety engineers, labor representatives, and safety inspectors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 61 out of 100 (57–65 allowing for uncertainty): 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: Explaining what a safety regulation means is the kind of reading and translation AI does 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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing plans and specifications for construction of new machinery or equipment to determine whether all safety requirements have been met
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at plans, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Review plans and specifications for construction of new machinery or equipment to determine whether all safety requirements have been met.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking machine drawings against safety requirements is document review, signed off by a qualified engineer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing and revising safety regulations and codes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at safety regulations, 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 · CoreSource: “Write and revise safety regulations and codes.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Drafting safety rules and codes is technical writing AI does well, with qualified sign-off during production.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing plans for the prevention of destruction
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at plans, 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 · CoreSource: “Develop plans for the prevention of destruction by fire, wind, and water.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Prevention plans draw on documented practice, with a qualified engineer responsible for the result.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing industry standards of product safety
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at industry standards of product safety, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop industry standards of product safety.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Standards drafting builds on published work, but agreement among industry bodies is a human process.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Evaluating fire department performance and the laws and regulations affecting fire prevention or fire safety
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put fire department performance well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate fire department performance and the laws and regulations affecting fire prevention or fire safety.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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.
The rating behind it: Assessing fire service performance and the rules around it mixes records with local knowledge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Evaluating adequacy of actions taken to correct health inspection violations
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put adequacy of actions taken well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate adequacy of actions taken to correct health inspection violations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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.
The rating behind it: Checking that violations were fixed usually means seeing the corrected condition yourself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Designing fire detection equipment, alarm systems and fire extinguishing devices and systems
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for fire detection equipment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design fire detection equipment, alarm systems, and fire extinguishing devices and systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 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: AI can draft fire system designs, but a licensed engineer must produce and seal them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing technical advice and guidance to organizations on how to handle health-related problems and making needed changes
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles technical advice and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide technical advice and guidance to organizations on how to handle health-related problems and make needed changes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice can be drafted, but organizations act on guidance from someone they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Studying the relationships between ignition sources and materials to determine how fires start
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the relationships, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Study the relationships between ignition sources and materials to determine how fires start.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 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: Studying how materials ignite requires physical testing alongside published research.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research on fire retardants and the fire safety of materials and devices
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct research on fire retardants and the fire safety of materials and devices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 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: Fire retardant research needs laboratory testing, not only reading the literature.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing training materials and conducting training sessions on fire protection
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop training materials and conduct training sessions on fire protection.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training materials draft easily, but delivering the sessions means standing in front of people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Planning and conducting industrial hygiene research
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: industrial hygiene research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Plan and conduct industrial hygiene research.” (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: Hygiene research needs sampling and measurement in the actual workplace.
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.
Investigating industrial accidents, injuries or occupational diseases to determine causes and preventive measures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: industrial accidents, injuries or occupational diseases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Investigate industrial accidents, injuries, or occupational diseases to determine causes and preventive measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 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: Accident investigation mixes reading records with walking the site and talking to people there.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with authorities to discuss safety regulations and to recommend changes
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles authorities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with authorities to discuss safety regulations and to recommend changes as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Persuading authorities to change safety regulations is a negotiation between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining liaisons with outside organizations
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles liaisons and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain liaisons with outside organizations, such as fire departments, mutual aid societies, and rescue teams, so that emergency responses can be facilitated.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Keeping fire and rescue services ready to help you depends on ongoing personal relationships.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conferring with medical professionals to assess health risks and to develop ways to manage health issues and concerns
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medical professionals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Confer with medical professionals to assess health risks and to develop ways to manage health issues and concerns.” (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: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Assessing health risks with doctors is a professional discussion between qualified people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Interviewing employers and employees to obtain information about work environments and workplace incidents
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: employers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Interview employers and employees to obtain information about work environments and workplace incidents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Getting honest answers about a workplace incident depends on a person asking face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing the purchase, modification, installation, testing, maintenance and operation of fire prevention and protection systems
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the purchase, modification, installation, testing, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct the purchase, modification, installation, testing, maintenance, and operation of fire prevention and protection systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Directing purchase, installation and testing of fire systems means overseeing real work on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Determining causes of fires and ways in which they
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: causes of fires, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Determine causes of fires and ways in which they could have been prevented.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Some of the analysis is documented method, but reading the fire scene needs someone there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting or directing testing of air quality
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: air quality, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct or direct testing of air quality, noise, temperature, or radiation levels to verify compliance with health and safety regulations.” (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: Air, noise and radiation testing requires instruments physically placed in the workplace.
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.
Inspecting facilities, machinery or safety equipment to identify and correct potential hazards and to ensure safety regulation compliance
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: facilities, machinery or safety equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Inspect facilities, machinery, or safety equipment to identify and correct potential hazards, and to ensure safety regulation compliance.” (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 hazards in a facility requires walking it and looking at the machinery.
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.
Designing and building safety equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: safety equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Design and build safety equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Building safety equipment means making and fitting real hardware.
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 2/4.
Checking floors of plants to ensure that they are strong enough to support heavy machinery
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: floors of plants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Check floors of plants to ensure that they are strong enough to support heavy machinery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging whether a factory floor will carry heavy machinery means being there to check it.
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 2/4.
Providing expert testimony in litigation cases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: expert testimony, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide expert testimony in litigation cases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–5 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Testifying as an expert is something only a qualified person can do, in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workshops, seminars or conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Attend workshops, seminars, or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Attending workshops and conferences is about being there in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Installing safety devices on machinery or directing device installation
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: safety devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Install safety devices on machinery or direct device installation.” (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: Fitting safety devices to machines is hands-on installation work.
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.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $115,160a 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
- 21,450in 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: current policies in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining, and applying knowledging of current policies and recommending procedures for detection, prevention and elimination of physical, chemical or other product hazards. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where workshops, seminars or conferences 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. Maintaining, and applying knowledging of current policies is going; attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection is not.
So, given all that: 26% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 18% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 57% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 41 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 (attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection) 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 attending workshops, seminars or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection, 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 health and safety engineers, except mining safety engineers and inspectors (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was fire inspectors and investigators: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 34.1% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 37/100 here, with only 26% of the task list in the top band, and “advise architects, builders, and other construction personnel on fire prevention equipment and…” 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.
Fire Inspectors and Investigators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop training materials and conduct training sessions on fire protection, and their equivalent is to conduct inspections and acceptance testing of newly installed fire protection systems. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $75,920 against your $115,160, 34.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already investigate industrial accidents, injuries, or occupational diseases to determine causes and preventive measures, and their equivalent is to investigate accidents to identify causes or to determine how such accidents might be…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $90,150 against your $115,160, 21.7% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Firefighters
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already design fire detection equipment, alarm systems, and fire extinguishing devices and systems, and their equivalent is to inspect fire sites after flames have been extinguished to ensure that there is…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $59,280 against your $115,160, 48.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 26% of its task weight, across 41 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 Quantity surveyors 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 Quantity surveyors, Engineering professionals n.e.c., Quality control and planning engineers and Engineering project managers and project engineers. 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 health / safety engineers / except mining safety engineers / inspectors, 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 26% 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 health / safety engineers / except mining safety engineers / inspectors. 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 health / safety engineers / except mining safety engineers / inspectors 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 Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 41 official task statements scored for Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors (United States, SOC 17-2111), 26% 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 31–43, 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 “Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain and apply knowledge of current policies, regulations, and industrial processes” (83/100, very high); “Compile, analyze, and interpret statistical data related to occupational illnesses and accidents” (72/100, high); “Prepare and write reports detailing specific fire prevention and protection issues, such as work performed, revised codes or standards, and proposed review s…” (66/100, 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 “Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors” stay human?
- About 57% 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: “Install safety devices on machinery or direct device installation” (0/100, minimal); “Attend workshops, seminars, or conferences to present or obtain information regarding fire prevention and protection” (0/100, minimal); “Provide expert testimony in litigation cases” (1/100, 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 “Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 26% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 57% 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 Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors 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 41 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.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- 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-with-imputed)
- 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.