From what I gather (being a physical chemist by trade):
Asbestos >>> (fiber)Glass >> mineral wool (aka ROCKwool) >>> cotton/plastics/etc.
The problem with the first two is that the body cannot decompose the fibres.
The huge problem with Asbestos (as compared to glass) is that while glass fibers are actually liquid, so they break across (making them shorter and thus less damaging) the asbestos fibres are solid and brittle, they break "along the grain" into smaller but still fibres.
This eventually results into a bunch of so small fibres that stay "floating" in the air even over a several days/weeks period. Unlike glass fibres which will settle on the gound in a couple hours.
With rock wool, the minerals it is made from are mostly acid-solvable and the lung fluid will decompose them over time. So even if they scar the tissue, it is a one-off effect that will heal eventually. Unlike with glass and, especially, asbestos.
Now, again, being a chemist, I have a huge peeve with the "studies" equating the fiberglass with mineral wools. The problem is that the studies actually test NOT for the fibres decomposition but the fibres *binder* decomposition. And since the same binder is mostly used, they get "same" results. Now guess who funds these studies ... fiberglass producers. And who pays a study gets to define the question being asked ... formulate the question smartly, and you can mis-inform the regulatory bodies with ease ..
Either way, both fiberglass and rockwool are fine when not disturbed. So above is more for posterity than relating to your use case.
I mentioned it because the Festool vacs use sound dampening in the air path ... using foam which is safe. So I have (incorrectly) presumed you possibly did something similar .. or that someone reading your post may interpret it that way.
