Hi again Nismar,
Yeah, but though he uses the term inorganic, he doesn't strictly exclude organic, and it does not emerge in the title. I was dealing mainly with the principles, and as I apologised, I was writing in a hurry.
The principles that I had in mind at the time were mainly:
* that if one regards toxicity as a class of interference with the workings of a complex mechanism, then there are many ways in which damage can be done, beyond just clogging some of the components. One can break them, misdirect their action, over-rev them, jam switches open or shut, modify their effects, etc.
* That one sometimes could get more economical effects by introducing something directly harmful (possibly a single component; something that jams open a single channel in a cell membrane often can kill the whole cell, eukaryote or prokaryote. You can't achieve nearly as much just by wrecking a single enzyme molecule.
* I reckon that there are plenty of inorganics that behave in all such ways; it is just that, not being enzymatic in their mechanisms, they are far less specific in their effects.
At a guess I should say that apart from any incidental enzymatic inhibition, the likes of Be compounds, crocidolite (especially when it contains benzopyrenes from metamorphosed microbial fossils), O3 and NO2 might well be examples of substances that produce all such effects, often in multiple combinations. I go along with epenguin on some such points.
Just thumbsucks of course...