That’s not exactly what you said before. Here’s what you said (in case you forgot):
In any event, while it may by psychologically satisfying to decry these chemical plants that are poisoning the poor, for purposes of actually addressing the problem (if there is one), one would need to know (1) what is the vector for these toxins; and (2) how much of an impact do they have.
It appears that you haven’t answered either of these questions.
Not really. You bear the burden of substantiating your claim, not me.
Very true. However, in the course of seeking an exchange of actual ideas, the forms of expression are important so as not to let that exchange turn into a second grade name-calling contest where the ideas are lost in the invective.