It occurred to me recently that I have not given you all the
really good reasons why you should be dedicated to learning modeling. I
will attempt to do so herein. The
reasons are listed and further explained below:
- It’s cool!
- It will really help you in your job as an industrial hygienist or exposure assessor
- You will become a relatively rare and sought after animal
- It could dramatically increase your value to your employer
It’s Cool:
Huey Lewis once sang that “its
hip to be square!” If you have any feel
for science at all, understanding or looking into the workings of reality can
be a real rush. The Science Channel
counts on this human trait to gather viewers.
Indeed, seeking and organizing the factors that drive human exposure in
any scenario is part of being human and many of us find it to be simply fun. Let’s face it, we are curious animals that
love to be competent and develop tools (i.e., models) and
acting on that curiosity is an end in itself for many of us.
It will really help you in your job as an industrial hygienist or exposure
assessor:
Modeling will inform your judgment
as to where the significant exposures might be whether they occur in the
present, happened in the past or have not occurred as yet. It will allow you to estimate the exposure
potential of scenarios literally on the other side of the globe. I should also ultimately mean you will most
likely waste less time monitoring some exposure scenarios that do not need measuring while focusing on
other that do. Properly done, skill in
modeling could in the long run mean less direct monitoring and more effort put
into characterizing what exactly is causing the potential over-exposures.
You will become a relatively rare and sought after animal:
Thanks to the efforts of my colleagues within the AIHA there
are quite a few more modelers out there in the Industrial Hygiene Community
than there were 20 years ago when we started beating the drum but there are frankly still relatively few. It is not the sort of discipline that you pick
up very quickly and there are very few places to actually learn it. The 2 day AIHA Professional Development
Course is probably the best but it is very intense and, while Rome was not
built in a day, it is even harder to “make a modeler” in two days. Indeed,
there are quite a few reasons that there remains a relative lack of folks that
are reasonably skilled in human exposure modeling. I outline this situation in detail in the
following document:
Those of you that read this short Word document will find
that it is an “offer of service” to clients to take the time and attention
needed to actually train professionals on-the-job in modeling to have them
become fully functional. The offer has been out for a while and I have
yet to have any takers. If I get a lot of response to this particular blog
I may reproduce it in a future blog. Frankly,
it walks the line between service to you and your management and self-promotion
but I am willing to take that chance to get the word out.
The fact remains that there are very few places to get this
training and that if you take the time to do so you will be a rare, and
valuable, exception. You will no longer be someone who just
measures and interprets exposures. You will be a technologist that predicts
exposures and understands and can explain the scientific basis for that judgment. That skill is worth something as the next point stresses.
It could dramatically
increase your value to your employer:
I tell you truthfully, that being able to model exposures
(and dose-response) made my career at the Rohm and Haas Company. The skill was responsible for at least 3
promotions within that company. Using models,
I was able to predict exposures with just a modicum of data and the invocation
of assumptions. I could explain and
justify those predictions based on first principle (and review-able) science and
the managers just loved it. Over 80% of
my work was rendering these informed and explained technical opinions regarding
the relative safety of products. When the margins of safety were high enough,
it gave them the confident knowledge they needed to proceed. When the margins were not adequate, it gave
me the necessary arguments (and support from my management) to obtain more
information and data to reduce the uncertainty and usually the predicted level
of risk.
Bottom Line: Becoming
skilled at modeling is not an easy or a short road but it’s the road less traveled and it
could offer tremendous benefits to you and your career.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteThere is another reason to be a modeler. At the end, you may win a Nobel prize!!! The 2013 Chemistry Nobel prize has been awarded to 3 chemists from USA and they are ,... modelers ! ;-)
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2013/press.html
Daniel D.
How does one calculate the so-called acceptable safety margin...using the classical CDF at 50% motality?
DeleteThe notion of "acceptability" is interesting and certainly political. Acceptable to who? Is it acceptable to the person being exposed or the ones doing the exposure or some third party? As you may have gathered by now, my blog deals primarily with exposure but toxicology remains fully half the picture in risk assessment. Often Margin of Safety is the ratio of the exposure limit/exposure and the larger the margin the greater the "acceptability". The critical issue of the actual level of risk extant at any exposure limit is a topic I have worked on for more than a dozen years and I am still working. Please stay tuned!
ReplyDelete