Asbestos Still Kills About 200,000 People a Year. Why Are We Still Arguing About the Science?

The greatest failure in public health today isn’t a lack of scientific evidence. It’s our failure to turn that evidence into public understanding.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moves to strengthen protections against legacy asbestos exposure, one uncomfortable truth remains: science has outpaced public awareness. If science stays in the lab, public health fails.

I have spent more than three decades studying asbestos, its mineralogy, and the ways it affects human health. During that time, I have watched scientific understanding advance dramatically while public understanding has barely moved. The frustrating reality is that we are no longer fighting a shortage of evidence. We are fighting a shortage of communication.

That distinction matters.

Too often, discussions about asbestos begin and end with fear. We talk about lawsuits, regulations, occupational exposure, and the devastating diseases linked to asbestos fibers. Those conversations are necessary because lives are at stake. But they are incomplete. Every challenge also presents an opportunity, and I believe we have reached a moment where scientific education could improve public health while reducing long-term economic costs.

Preventing disease is almost always less expensive than treating it.

Asbestos-related illnesses, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis, continue to impose enormous emotional and financial burdens on families and healthcare systems worldwide. Approximately 200,000 people die every year from occupational asbestos exposure, making it one of the world’s leading causes of work-related cancer. Beyond the tragic human cost, the financial consequences extend through decades of medical treatment, disability, lost productivity, insurance claims, and litigation.

The conversation should not stop at the cost of illness. It should also include the value of prevention.

Better public education creates better decision-making. Better testing standards create safer products. Earlier detection reduces healthcare costs. Investment in scientific research creates skilled jobs while strengthening regulatory systems and public confidence. We often frame public health as an expense, when in reality it is one of the smartest long-term investments a society can make.

Unfortunately, none of those benefits can be realized if people never understand the science in the first place.

Part of the problem is that asbestos is genuinely difficult to explain. Contrary to popular belief, asbestos is not a single material but a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Distinguishing between different mineral structures, fiber sizes, and testing methodologies requires scientific precision. Those nuances are challenging even for specialists, making them even harder to communicate to policymakers, journalists, and the public. That complexity has created an environment where oversimplified narratives often replace scientific evidence.

When misinformation comes from influential public figures, the challenge becomes exponentially greater.

President Donald Trump famously wrote in The Art of the Comeback that asbestos was “100 percent safe, once applied,” while suggesting that its removal was driven by organized crime interests rather than public health concerns. Whether intended as political commentary or personal opinion, statements like these carry enormous influence because they come from individuals with national platforms. Millions of people hear them. Many accept them without ever consulting the underlying science.

This is not about criticizing one politician. It is about recognizing how public perception is formed.

If leaders at the highest levels dismiss established scientific evidence or repeat outdated claims, why should we expect the average citizen to separate fact from fiction? Public understanding cannot improve if misinformation receives more attention than decades of peer-reviewed research.

Yet despite these frustrations, I remain optimistic.

For the first time in many years, I have seen genuine momentum toward improving how asbestos is identified and regulated. Scientists, regulators, and policymakers have spent years working to modernize testing standards, particularly in cosmetic products, where more sensitive analytical techniques can detect fibers that older methods may miss. Watching that work progress, after decades of advocacy for bringing good science to the table, has been deeply encouraging.

The process has not been smooth.

Regulatory proposals have faced delays, competing interpretations, political scrutiny, and resistance from industries understandably concerned about the consequences of changing long-established definitions and testing practices. That is how democracy works. Major policy decisions deserve rigorous debate. But debate should strengthen science, not replace it.

Even when progress slows, it still represents progress.

For much of my career, asbestos rarely entered mainstream public conversation unless another tragedy occurred. Today, discussions about testing standards, consumer safety, and scientific evidence are reaching the highest levels of government. That alone represents meaningful change. Conversations that were once confined to laboratories are finally reaching policymakers and the public.

Now we need to ensure they stay there.

The lesson extends far beyond asbestos. Whether the issue is environmental contaminants, emerging diseases, or the next public health challenge, science only protects people when people understand it. Evidence buried in technical journals or drowned out by misinformation cannot save lives.

After more than thirty years in this field, I believe our greatest challenge is no longer scientific discovery. It is scientific communication. When evidence reaches the public, misinformation loses its power, better decisions follow, and public health finally moves forward.

About the Author:

Sean Fitzgerald is a professional geologist and the founder of FACTS, PLLC, an environmental consulting firm and analytical laboratory specializing in asbestos, elongate mineral particles, mineralogy, and forensic scientific analysis. For more than three decades, he has conducted geological investigations, contributed to scientific research, written various peer-reviewed research papers, and provided expert analysis on asbestos-related environmental, regulatory, and public health issues.