When and Why did Chrysotile Become Known as Asbestos: 1895

As you may remember from my post last week, the 1892 Minerals Report for Asbestos discussed why Chrysotile fibers were not asbestos, although they appeared similar. See the first five sentences from the first page of that report.

By 1895, the scientists threw up their hands and just refer to both asbestos and Chrysotile as asbestos. Was this done for good scientific reasons? Nope. Rather, the scientists writing the Minerals Yearbook decided to give into the nomenclature used by those people in the commercial trade. Note the following on page 2 of the 1895 Minerals Yearbook.

As stated in that same Minerals Yearbook, on page 1, the Canadian chrysotile was still superior to the alternatives with an unlimited supply.

Since the decision to call chrysolite from Canada as being asbestos instead of a separate and distinct mineral was political/commercial in nature and not based on science, I wonder how the asbestos landscape world be different had the scientists, instead of commercial trades persons, prevailed?

Too many “what if’s” for a historian, but maybe one of the experts in the social sciences will someday analyze how verbiage changes can affect the future.

I hope that you enjoyed this blog. I know that it is short, but I felt the topic to be unusual enough to provide food for thought. Please send me any comments or email me at TheAsbestosBlog@gmail.com. Thank you. Marty