Talc and Asbestos: A Little Bit of History

Let’s start out that I am not an expert on talc. However, in today’s world, talc and asbestos are very much intertwined and, as such, I think that a historical perspective on their relationship would be useful. From my research, we can take this historical association between talc and asbestos at least back over 110 years to books authored in 1910 by Fritz Cirkel and 1931 by James Gordon Ross.

The 1910 Cirkel book entitled Chrysotile-Asbestos: Its Occurrence, Exploitation, Milling, and Uses was written for the Canadian Department of Mines. The 1931 Ross book is the update to the 1910 Cirkel, is entitled Chrysotile Asbestos in Canada, and was also written for the Canadian Department of Mines. Both are extremely comprehensive for their times. However, they are far from being the first books written about Canadian asbestos as Cirkel has a prior book from 1905 and, of course, R.H. Jones has his famous books from 1890 and 1897. One of my favorite quotes is from Jones 1890 in which he states about asbestos on page 1:

“Occupying the position of a connecting link between the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, it possesses some of the characteristics of all three.“

I happen to have hardbound copies of all five of these books although you can find electronic versions of most books from that era on the Internet. I suggest using the Hathi Digital Trust database at https://www.hathitrust.org/ should an electronic library copy be sufficient for your office copy.

A good modern day discussion on talc, the softest mineral (as compared to crocidolite asbestos, the most dangerous mineral, https://theasbestosblog.com/?p=1475) can be found at https://geology.com/minerals/talc.shtml. However, my blogs focus on historical information and, as such, let’s take you back to 1931 which, at first blush seems to state that talc is, in and off itself, a form of asbestos. Ross, using a chart also used by Cirkel in 1910, states as follows:

When I first discovered this Summary, I was convinced that talc at one point in time was considered an asbestos. However, as you get into a more detailed description of talc in the book, the discussion on their relationship becomes more defined. I will let the book speak for itself. Remember, that for purposes of this discussion, the words talc and soapstone can be used interchangeably:

I was, quite honestly, surprised at the breadth of products in which talc has been historically used.

The following page is meant primarily for those readers who are chemists or whom really get into the weeds on chemical formulations.

As to the talc litigation in the United States (and maybe elsewhere), both as related to ovarian cancer and involving the talc being contaminated with Tremolite Asbestos, the number and size of the claims may well bankrupt Johnson & Johnson as it looks to potentially file a 2-Step insolvency in Texas, https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/judge-allows-johnson-johnson-split-talc-liabilities-main-business-2021-08-26/. Talc could be “the next asbestos” for litigation but, on the other hand, it isn’t a mineral within the “asbestos” designation as the 1910 Cirkel and 1931 Ross books seemed to imply. Close, both chemically and geographically, but with substantial differences.

I hope that this discussion was useful for those of you who are interested in a high level overview of talc. Should you like, please provide a comment or let me know if you have any questions or would like to borrow the referenced books from my library by emailing me at TheAsbestosBlog@gmail.com. Thank you. Marty