Fw: Environmental modeling position at EPA

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I thought RADSAFERs might be interested in the attached exchange.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ruth_weiner <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
To: Wolbarst.Anthony@epamail.epa.gov <Wolbarst.Anthony@epamail.epa.gov>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Environmental modeling position at EPA


>Hi Tony:
>
>At the risk of prolonging this discussion, I am responding to your note and
>posting my response on RADSAFE.  I am doing this because your ad
>unfortunately confirms the suspicion that many of us "hard" (hard-core?)
>scientists have that EPA appears to be gradually substituting political
>correctness and a "touchy-feely" approach for good science.  The scientific
>answer is not always popular or palatable.  So here goes:
>
>1.  A PIO is a public information officer.  (I thought all you Washington
>types knew all the acronyms!  Don't like them myself.)  That's what your ad
>really sounds as if it is for.
>2.  I think the ad gives the wrong impression.  A Ph. D. (or M. S.) in
>physics or chemistry or most engineering really ought to know the basic
>stuff (are you sure you didn't?) and if you mean things like definitions of
>rem, rad, etc., and dose considerations, a Ph. D in a physical science can
>look them up in the HP Handbook or similar reference.  You might also have
>said that a candidate with a physical science Ph. D. but insufficient
>knowledge may be asked (or supported) to take a basic health physics
course.
>A Ph. D. in, for example, sociology or literature wouldn't have the
>background or know where to begin.
>3.  The ad's statement about devoting energy to non-scientific endeavors
>also gives much the wrong impression.  I can certainly understand, as we
all
>can, that EPA wants people with good communications skills, but your ad
>reads as if this were considerably more important than knowledge and
>familiarity with the scientific method.  After all, all these anti-nuke
>celebrities (Alec Baldwin, Christie Brinkley, etc.) have great
>communications skills and appear to have no analytical skills at all.  My
>own opinion is that the mantra about "scientists can't talk to 'real
people'
>" is generally false, and I say that after a lifetime of communicating with
>non-scientist students, many of whom weren't in the least interested in
>science.  Most people who (a) know what they are talking about, (b) are
>enthusiastic about the subject, and (c) want very much to communicate it do
>so very well.  When the scientist says something the stakeholder doesn't
>want to hear, the response is often "but you don't know how to talk to
>non-scientists."
>
>I really hope this is helpful.
>
>Ruth
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wolbarst.Anthony@epamail.epa.gov <Wolbarst.Anthony@epamail.epa.gov>
>To: ruth_weiner@email.msn.com <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>
>Date: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:49 AM
>Subject: Re: Environmental modeling position at EPA
>
>
>>
>>
>>Dear Ruth,
>>
>>     Thank you for your interesting letter.  In answer to your first
point,
>I
>>feel that a strong modeling scientist (read physicist, geophysicist,
>climate
>>physicist, etc., with a concentration on modeling) with a PhD, or perhaps
>an MS
>>and much experience, can learn the rad stuff needed for modeling very
>quickly.
>>I'm a solid state physicist, and I found myself fairly comfortable with
>most
>>ionizing radiation issues in a matter of months of concentrated study.
>>Secondly, the position, as hopefully is clear, requires work other than
>>modeling;  we also have to be general environmental risk problem-solvers
>with a
>>wide customer-base -- which is one of the reasons, I think, the job is
such
>fun.
>>I hope this allays your concerns.
>>
>>     Tony
>>
>>p.s.  I don't know what a PIO is.
>>
>>
>
>



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html