i don't think the grandparent poster is posting in bad faith, i just think they're getting their information about that real story from an intentionally unreliable source
movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions
there are lots of reliable information sources about pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration, msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and so on
there is no need to make yourself dumber by making life decisions contingent on beliefs you acquired from movies
i am not going to subject myself to hours of manipulative propaganda for which truth is not even a consideration in order to write a 'rebuttal' nobody wants to read, thus implicitly affirming all the errors that i missed or that didn't seem important enough to mention
dramatizations are works of fiction
literally everything in them is false with the occasional exception
every word, every facial expression, every event, every chemical reaction, every purchase, every article of clothing, every motivation
the exceptions where they say something objectively true are enumerable; the falsehoods are not
don't base your beliefs or life decisions on fiction
finding out what is true and making good choices are hard enough without deliberately sabotaging the process
I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to your assertion that "movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions" in order to defend the GP comment.
If that's a ridiculous question, it's only because your assertion was equally ridiculous given the context of the thread.
movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions
there are lots of reliable information sources about pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration, msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and so on
there is no need to make yourself dumber by making life decisions contingent on beliefs you acquired from movies