(The present scientifi c contribution is dedicated to the 650th anniversary of the foundation of the University of Pécs, Hungary.)Toxicologists prefer working with pure chemicals and their solutions for well-defi ned toxicity tests. Diffi culties arise when toxicologists study different particles, such as those involved in testing solid-state toxicity (or mutagenicity or carcinogenicity). In the case of particles and mineral fi bres, the crystalline structure, shape, diameter, and other physical characteristics can alter the toxic effects. Indeed, in surface reactions with chemical compounds, the carrier capacity may also infl uence the potential effects. Asbestos fi bre carcinogenicity is a good example of these diffi culties. Occupational epidemiologists, rather than toxicologists, initially proved the carcinogenic risk of asbestos [1]. How did they prove it? Epidemiological studies require a long time and asbestos fi bres cause remote health effects, such as bronchial cancer and pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma. The latter has an extraordinary latency of more than 20 years. Selikoff found that workers exposed to asbestos often had damaged lung tissue 30 years after exposure. Specifi c toxicological studies on asbestos were initiated by preparation of standard Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) asbestos samples by Timbrell and Rendall [2]. Because elementary fi brils and fi bre bundles behave in very different ways in toxicity tests, the size distribution of the asbestos types (one serpentine and six amphiboles, respectively) was recognized as the most important toxicity factor. Timbrell and Rendall prepared the test samples with a standard size distribution to accumulate comparable data from toxicology laboratories worldwide. It was a revolutionary step in fi bre research. Currently, enough data has been collected to ban all forms of asbestos, a very hazardous fi brous (particulate) material.There are important lessons for toxicologists and public health specialists to learn from the asbestos incident. Repetition of this mistake would be more than mistake, it would be a sin. In the new era of nanomaterials and nanotoxicology we are faced with similar problems. Both non-toxic and toxic compounds can behave contrariwise in nanosize. For instance, nano-selenium (Se) can serve as a potential chemopreventative agent with reduced risk of Se toxicity [3]. However, other nanosized metals (and their oxides) proved more toxic, genotoxic or ecotoxic [4,5].