I'm an engineer/scientist (retired).

Those of us in the technical fields are supposed to have a thick skin as we are to expect criticism for our ideas/concepts and have to prove our ideas/challenges correct. That's doubly so when we challenge apparently soundly based conventional wisdom.

We also know how to do literature research to equip ourselves with data and rational before we enjoin other's to comment. Again, that's especially important when attacking conventional wisdom.

I suspect you are looking for a fight based on your accusatory, non-scientific response. Then too, there's the total lack of preparation (for a scientist) as demonstrated by your original post.

The comments here were not impolite and were exactly what one would expect given the nature of the question. You were getting an aggressive defense of the conventional wisdom which in this case is well founded until you make a case otherwise. Hand-waving horse-stuff won't do here.

In other words, the evidence is believed so conclusive, that the tone of the answer is typical of a "dumb question". You'll get that in scientific debate among peers when attacking long held and what appear to be well founded conclusions/theories.

The burden of proof is not on the defenders of conventional wisdom, but on you. It's up to you to make the case for no-helmet rather than attacking those who strongly believe it's a really dumb idea are "patronizing and sarcastic".

That might work at your lab, it didn't at mine.

For such an open mind, you are quick to question other's motives. That is NOT the scientific approach!

Al