They have and probably still do though[1]. Lived only a couple hours from the location of the film and my wife grew up in a city on the Ohio River they were dumping chemicals into. Was in the local paper here almost weekly during the late 90s and early 00s.
In fact, it sounds like the government was lacking regulations on PFOA.
That said, there's plenty of cases of illegal dumping out there with chemicals that are regulated.
For example: https://apnews.com/9717f8be97db4944a825088dc5eee379/US-prose...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/04/teflons_toxic_legacy_partne...
My post was in response to this question:
> I can see the perspective that making, having, or dealing [LSD] is an unacceptable risk of harm to people who didn't consent. Is there some reason that's unrealistic?
My point was that the factors of “unacceptable risk” in regulations are laden with things that have nothing to do with actual levels of harm to people. You corroborated that point with your post; I’m only clarifying here. This is the system we have, and it can be quite bad at actual harm reduction due to cultural factors.
It’s weird to live in a world where a substance that showed great promise in therapy, fighting alcoholism and other addictions etc. has been banned for 50 years, while another substance that makes dish washing and floor cleaning easier but causes cancer and birth defects in people close to where it’s made is broadly sanctioned.