Dream Buster
The Government are unconvinced it is true, but only because of the financial impact it would have on the aviation industry. Agreed?
No, not agreed. Why should the government care what the impact is on the aviation industry? They certainly didn't care about the farmers in recent years, a much bigger industry and one with more impact on the economy. There are many other industries that have been badly treated by the government in recent times, so why is aviation special?
More to the point, why do you assume that governments are innately dishonest and self-serving? It is a typical viewpoint of the extreme conspiracists and other fringe groups who specialise in sensationalism at the expense of hard facts.
Could it actually be that the science is not compelling? Maybe the government is actually saying "we appreciate that there may be a problem, but until you PROVE it we can't act". One three hundred page book and a small amount of research is not the same thing as proof. It is a good start, and it may lay the foundation for better research to come, but it isn't enough in itself. Governments don't act because very small pressure groups, using very small samples, say they should. You have to make your case.
The problem with the summary of events that you detail above is that you don't actually KNOW what caused them. You are making a reasonable inference, but it isn't the same thing as proof. Case in point: many years ago, while doing a domestic flight, some of the crew and pax on a flight I was on felt dizzy and faint, similar symptoms to the one you describe. To cut a long story short, the cause was traced to a can of industrial solvent that had leaked in the hold - the fumes were leaking through the floor joins into the cabin. The can should never have been there, ot course, but the point is that the symptoms were nearly identical to the ones you describe - but had nothing to do with engines or oil.
If you want to fight this fight, you need to avoid the woolly thinking and hasty conclusions that have been the hallmarks of this issue. You have to differentiate between short-term exposure and it's effects (which is what you post above is all about), and long-term effects from years of exposure to less obvious contamination. They are two different issues, and yet the advocates of cabin air action constantly confuse the two and treat them as the same thing.
And finally... many years ago I was positioning on an ATP (another problem aircraft from the fumes viewpoint) when the cabin filled with oily blue smoke. An intercompressor turbine labyrinth seal had let go in one of the engines and filled the cabin with pyrolised oil smoke. We landed 20 mins later, with smoke still visible in the cabin. And yet... nobody reported feeling ill or impaired in any way. Not the pax, and not the crew. And they were all looked at by paramedics after we landed... so go figure. Maybe the issue isn't as cut and dried as you think.