It seems im misunderstanding something. I asked this question here, it got closed as "off-topic" (im not sure what this means exactly, is the topic wrong or no notable claim). I have no problem with this. So i saw travel.SE and alot aviation questions there and probably more user regulary doeing air-travel. Asked for experiences there, how frequent it is at all, but not to disprove my claim. But mods over there migrated it back here, where, again, it got closed despite some votes?
Im not sure i get the reasoning behind this. Has a question to contain a notable claim by a single person, a claim by notable person (it doesnt get more notable than a airplance company stating there are no health risks, but loosing several lawsuits concerning aerotoxic contamination vs. their own pilots/flight attendants). Why migrating a question when it gets anyway closed.
Do you want me to quote/link a single passenger making the claim: "Oil fumes are frequent and risky". This is much less objective than a lawsuit! I really dont understand whats wrong with this question im the most interested in on all my questions i asked here (and got very good answers). A very subjective claim of a single person (not at all being a neuroscientist - "Watching TV makes you stupid") is ok but my question not. Can someone please explain the difference between both questions, i think im not going to get a closed question then here anymore :) My first question here was about marathon human vs. animal, a claim made by a anonym sports commentator, there were complaints about seriousness, so i added a nature paper. I dont see how i can vote any answer on the "TV makes you stupid" question. Its like asking "Does playing to much soccer/football makes you stupid." There are dozens of parallel factors who can make you smarter, you can watch discovery channel or math lessons. You cannot draw a conclusion on short-time effects, you cannot exclude long-time contrary effects. I dont have any idea how a experiment in a peer-reviewed paper can be implemented to test this question. Even if a paper comes with a conclusion, babies/kids watching every day 5 hours animation movies have a worse short-time memory or less spatial visualisation ability (e.g. worse prerequisites for geometry) i would not upvote it as i dont see a link to the much more general question or general intelligence at all you can draw a sure conclusion on. If you dont integrate in the answer, how intelligence is defined, what watching alot TV is, how its effects differ between kids, teenager, adults, which contents they watch, how can i judge this. I even would have no idea to judge two different answers here, one sayin no, one yes, but having completely different experimental setups (e.g. long - short time, adults-babies).
If you decide to keep it closed as off-topic, im fine with this, im new to this site and you (mods) know better what questions you want here. I cannot really argue againts this and now already invested 1 hour in this question and meta here. Im not going to extend this. But then please move it back to travel.SE, i think im allowed to ask there for personal experiences as people do nothing else then giving out personal advices based on experience on that site. They thougt this question fits better here, but apparently does not. Otherwise i have to ask this on reddit, i would be surprised if such a crucial question has no place on stackexchange.