Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Question: What are the risks of asbestos exposure?
Answer: The asbestos exposure risks by state vary significantly based on industrial history, natural deposits, and historical usage patterns.
Each state presents unique exposure risks based on its industrial heritage, construction practices, and natural asbestos deposits.
On this page, we’ll examine the asbestos exposure risks across different states, occupational asbestos exposure by state, state-specific asbestos regulations and policies, and much more.
Several factors contribute to state-specific asbestos exposure risks:
These risk factors continue to impact communities today, despite stronger regulations and awareness.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine if you qualify to file a mesothelioma lawsuit today.
Asbestos exposure risks vary dramatically across different states, with industrial and environmental factors creating unique health challenges for workers and residents.
The widespread use of asbestos in manufacturing, construction, and industrial settings has left a lasting impact on communities nationwide, creating long-term health risks for millions of Americans.
Industrial sites have been primary sources of asbestos exposure, putting workers in numerous states at significant risk.
The Environmental Working Group reports that occupational exposure remains a serious concern across multiple industries and regions.
Here are the most common high-risk job sites for asbestos exposure:
These industrial sites created significant opportunities for workers to inhale dangerous asbestos fibers, leading to potential long-term health complications and asbestos-related deaths.
Different states experienced varying levels of asbestos-related deaths based on their industrial profiles and economic activities. Some regions bore a disproportionate burden of occupational asbestos exposure.
States with the highest occupational asbestos exposure risks include:
The concentration of natural asbestos occurrences and historic asbestos mines in certain states further complicated the state asbestos exposure landscape.
Workers in these regions faced heightened risks of inhaling dangerous asbestos fibers, leading to long-term health complications.
The occupational risks varied significantly across states, with some regions experiencing more concentrated exposure due to specific industrial activities and geographic characteristics.
This uneven distribution of risk highlights the importance of understanding localized asbestos exposure patterns and their potential health impacts.
Asbestos exposure represents a significant environmental health challenge across the United States, with widespread contamination stemming from industrial activities, natural deposits, and historical manufacturing practices.
The pervasive nature of this toxic substance has created long-lasting environmental risks that continue to impact communities nationwide, particularly in regions with extensive industrial and mining histories.
Public buildings have been a major source of potential asbestos exposure, with government assessments revealing alarming contamination levels across various institutional settings.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 20% of state and local public buildings contained friable asbestos materials in the mid-1980s, presenting significant health risks to occupants.
Here are the most concerning locations for asbestos exposure in public buildings:
The persistent presence of asbestos in public infrastructure continues to pose significant health risks, particularly for lung cancer development and other respiratory conditions.
Residential communities near historic asbestos prospects face substantial environmental contamination risks.
The EPA identified 262 sites across 40 states that received shipments of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, creating potential exposure zones for nearby residents.
Key factors contributing to residential asbestos exposure include:
Mesothelioma deaths continue to demonstrate the long-term consequences of environmental asbestos exposure, with some communities experiencing generational health impacts from historical industrial activities.
The legacy of asbestos contamination remains a significant public health concern, particularly in regions with extensive mining and manufacturing histories.
Chlor-alkali plants represent a critical source of ongoing asbestos environmental exposure in the United States.These industrial facilities continue to use chrysotile asbestos in chemical production, despite available safer alternatives.
Key details about chlor-alkali plants and asbestos exposure:
These historic asbestos prospects continue to pose significant environmental risks, contributing to ongoing concerns about mesothelioma deaths associated with industrial asbestos exposure.
The environmental risks associated with asbestos remain a critical public health issue, with potential exposure continuing to threaten communities across the United States through various industrial and historical sources.
Asbestos exposure risks vary dramatically across different states, with each region presenting unique challenges related to industrial history, environmental contamination, and regulatory approaches.
The eastern United States, in particular, demonstrates a complex landscape of asbestos-related risks, stemming from historical mining operations, industrial sites, and naturally occurring mineral deposits.
State regulations surrounding asbestos have evolved significantly over the past decades, reflecting the growing understanding of the mineral’s health hazards.
Each state has developed its framework for managing asbestos-related risks, creating a patchwork of protective measures and guidelines.
Here are key variations in state asbestos regulations:
These variations reflect the localized approach to managing asbestos-related risks, with each state adapting its policies based on historical industrial activities and environmental conditions.
The interplay between federal and state asbestos regulations creates a multilayered approach to protection and management.
While federal guidelines provide a baseline, individual states often implement more stringent requirements to address their specific environmental and industrial contexts.
Key differences between federal and state asbestos guidelines include:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has documented significant variations in mesothelioma incidence across different states, highlighting the importance of localized regulatory approaches to asbestos management.
These state-specific regulations reflect the ongoing challenge of managing a legacy of widespread asbestos use, with each jurisdiction developing targeted strategies to protect public health and mitigate historical exposure risks.
Asbestos exposure has created a significant legal landscape across the United States, with each state experiencing unique challenges related to industrial history, environmental contamination, and health risks.
The widespread use of asbestos in various industries has led to complex legal battles and compensation efforts that continue to impact communities nationwide.
State-specific litigation has revealed the profound impact of asbestos exposure on workers and communities.
The legal battles have highlighted the extensive reach of asbestos-related health risks across different regions and industries.
Here are some of the most significant state-level asbestos legal developments:
The legal landscape demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of asbestos exposure, with states developing unique approaches to address the ongoing health and environmental challenges.
Asbestos shipments and industrial use have created a complex network of compensation mechanisms across different states, designed to support victims of asbestos-related diseases.
Key state-specific compensation resources include:
These state-level compensation efforts reflect the ongoing commitment to supporting individuals impacted by decades of asbestos exposure across various industries and regions.
The trust funds provide critical financial support for medical treatment, lost wages, and other related expenses for victims and their families.
Mesothelioma lawsuits are being filed by individuals across the country who were diagnosed with mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos.
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for mesothelioma lawsuits.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your mesothelioma lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for a mesothelioma lawsuit today.
The highest-risk locations include construction sites, shipyards, manufacturing facilities, and power generation plants.
These industrial sites created significant opportunities for workers to inhale dangerous asbestos fibers, leading to potential long-term health complications.
California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have the highest occupational exposure risks due to their extensive industrial histories.
These states contained numerous shipyards, refineries, manufacturing facilities, and automotive industries where asbestos was commonly used.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 20% of state and local public buildings contained friable asbestos materials in the mid-1980s.
More than 8,500 educational facilities were found to contain friable asbestos, potentially exposing millions of children to dangerous fibers.
Yes, at least 12 chlor-alkali plants across the United States continue to use asbestos diaphragms in production.
The U.S. imported 750 tons of raw asbestos in 2018, primarily for the chlor-alkali industry use.
State-specific regulations often implement stricter requirements than federal standards, including more detailed exposure reporting and aggressive environmental remediation protocols.
Each state adapts its policies based on historical industrial activities and environmental conditions in their region.
Various state-specific compensation programs and trust funds have been established to support victims of asbestos-related diseases.
These programs provide critical financial support for medical treatment, lost wages, and other related expenses for victims and their families.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share reliable legal information with her readers!
You can learn more about the Asbestos by visiting any of our pages listed below:
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?