air bag injuries due to propellant chemicals

In case you are referrng to leaks while just driving along, there aren't
any.

As regards gas poisoning on air bag deployment, I am not aware of any
reports, nor of any long-term effects. Could be that the survivors are so
grateful to be alive that they don't care about a brief respiratory
annoyance, which they might not notice anyway if they are otherwise injured.

I don't think people may necessarily "belittle" your concern, but it has to
be seen in context.

Do you have contrary information?

Certainly air bags have given rise to new types of injury, or at least
changed the injury profile in car accidents. Two 'common' ones are whiplash
and skin burn (from the bag fabric rubbing against skin).. and so? Give me
these any day...

I think the impression is that you wish to make a mountain out of an anthill
(well, so long as it isn't higher than a couple of mm.

So, once again, do you have any info to support your worry?

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"linda" > wrote in message
...
> please do not belittle my concern. i understand the problems associated
> with getting in to a car.. the guy next to me could have had a bit too
> much to drink and crash in to me and my casket will have to be closed...i
> am informed about these things you mention, but i am mad as hell about
> not being properly informed about the chemical hazards associated with the
> deployment of the "life saving" apparatus'.
>
> thanks you for your cute email..
> i hope you have a great day...
>
> linda
>
> Dan Gates wrote:
>> linda wrote:
>>
>>> i have recently found out that air bags cause respiratory problems with
>>> their chemicals. the safety and auto industry knows this, but have
>>> determined the benefits outweigh the risks. i am wanting to find out
>>> how i can help, what i can do as an individual. i have read awful
>>> stories of people who have been injured physically due to impact with
>>> the airbags (brain damage, death, impairments of limbs and burns on
>>> faces, and eyes that have actually had the air bag wrap around them and
>>> cause tremendous injuries). the auto safety and auto industry admit
>>> these types of injuries (risk vs benefit)... But being a "little person"
>>> with limited resources, limited knowledge, i want to make these large
>>> companies admit the respiratory injuries that these chemicals cause and
>>> compensate those who have these types of injuries. i do not like the
>>> statements made that the benefits of the air bags outweigh the risks...
>>> ask a person who has been injured if they think it is worth it... i read
>>> on the internet that the warning labels for chemical exposure is on the
>>> underside of the already deployed air bag. i guess you can get away
>>> with anything these days, if you put a warning label on anything, even
>>> if you can't find it...
>>>
>>> i am sorry, i have to get down off my soap box now and send this
>>> message, so that i can await your reply...
>>>
>>> thanks, linda
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hell, yes! And seat belts crack ribs. And that damned roof cracks your
>> skull when you roll over three times and the roof caves in. Lets just
>> have a seat with no doors, shall we. And another thing -- those baby
>> seats give my kids a sore neck when the ride in them and fall asleep.
>> I've never been in an accident with my kids in the car! Why should my
>> kids have to ride in those uncomfortable seats??
>>
>> Cars are dangerous. Crashing hurts. Crashing at high speed really,
>> really hurts!!!
>>
>> Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
>> that have to use it.
>>
>> In the "eyes wrapped in airbag" example, trade "airbag" for "steering
>> wheel" or "dashboard" and we don't have to worry about your eyes because
>> it will be closed-casket anyway.
>>
>> Dan

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> i have recently found out that air bags cause respiratory problems with
> their chemicals.

This has been known for decades.

> the safety and auto industry knows this, but have
> determined the benefits outweigh the risks.

....except that they don't. Even using NHTSA's most grossly overstated
"saved" numbers and most grossly understated "cost" and "injured" numbers,
airbags as implemented in North America flunk any cost/benefit or
benefit/drawback analysis.

> i am wanting to find out how i can help, what i can do as an individual.

Not a damned thing. NHTSA does what it wants; most North American auto
safety and equipment regulations are based more on politics than on
science, and what science is used is highly selective. Doesn't matter
whether we're talking about airbags or headlamps or tires or brakes or
fuel tanks or whatever, the pattern is the same clear across the board.
Virtually the entire rest of the world subscribes to an alternate auto
safety regulation set (ECE). The US is NOT first/best/lowest in the world
for deaths per vehicle mile travelled; we are 16th. The US is NOT
first/best/lowest in the world for deaths per vehicle registered; we are
10th. ( www.scienceservingsociety.com ). Nevertheless, US regulators
continue to publicly claim that US cars are the safest in the world, and
privately deride the stupid rest of the world for not acceding to US
regulations.

> i want to make these large companies admit the respiratory injuries that
> these chemicals cause and compensate those who have these types of
> injuries.

And I want to make these large companies admit US lighting standards are 3
decades behind the rest of the world. I also want a great big house in the
middle of the forest in BC. And a zillion dollars.

> i do not like the statements made that the benefits of the air bags
> outweigh the risks...

I don't like being lied to either, especially when the lie is so baldfaced
and easily disproven.

DS

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> i have recently found out that air bags cause respiratory problems with
> their chemicals.

This has been known for decades.

> the safety and auto industry knows this, but have
> determined the benefits outweigh the risks.

....except that they don't. Even using NHTSA's most grossly overstated
"saved" numbers and most grossly understated "cost" and "injured" numbers,
airbags as implemented in North America flunk any cost/benefit or
benefit/drawback analysis.

> i am wanting to find out how i can help, what i can do as an individual.

Not a damned thing. NHTSA does what it wants; most North American auto
safety and equipment regulations are based more on politics than on
science, and what science is used is highly selective. Doesn't matter
whether we're talking about airbags or headlamps or tires or brakes or
fuel tanks or whatever, the pattern is the same clear across the board.
Virtually the entire rest of the world subscribes to an alternate auto
safety regulation set (ECE). The US is NOT first/best/lowest in the world
for deaths per vehicle mile travelled; we are 16th. The US is NOT
first/best/lowest in the world for deaths per vehicle registered; we are
10th. ( www.scienceservingsociety.com ). Nevertheless, US regulators
continue to publicly claim that US cars are the safest in the world, and
privately deride the stupid rest of the world for not acceding to US
regulations.

> i want to make these large companies admit the respiratory injuries that
> these chemicals cause and compensate those who have these types of
> injuries.

And I want to make these large companies admit US lighting standards are 3
decades behind the rest of the world. I also want a great big house in the
middle of the forest in BC. And a zillion dollars.

> i do not like the statements made that the benefits of the air bags
> outweigh the risks...

I don't like being lied to either, especially when the lie is so baldfaced
and easily disproven.

DS

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dan Gates wrote:

> Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
> that have to use it.

Christ, here we go again with another true-believer airbag freak who
hasn't looked at the actual numbers, hasn't seen that statistically one is
safer with a 3-point belt and NO airbag than one is with a 3-point belt
AND an airbag, but nevertheless he's absolutely sure that airbatgs are the
"cure".

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dan Gates wrote:

> Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
> that have to use it.

Christ, here we go again with another true-believer airbag freak who
hasn't looked at the actual numbers, hasn't seen that statistically one is
safer with a 3-point belt and NO airbag than one is with a 3-point belt
AND an airbag, but nevertheless he's absolutely sure that airbatgs are the
"cure".

In article >,
Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:
>In case you are referrng to leaks while just driving along, there aren't
>any.
>
>As regards gas poisoning on air bag deployment, I am not aware of any
>reports, nor of any long-term effects. Could be that the survivors are so
>grateful to be alive that they don't care about a brief respiratory
>annoyance, which they might not notice anyway if they are otherwise injured.

_I_ sure as hell noticed it. It was pretty bad, even given the open
area of my Miata. And the airbag did me no good, contacting only my
right arm (scraping it) while my seat belt kept the rest of my body
from contacting it.

>Certainly air bags have given rise to new types of injury, or at least
>changed the injury profile in car accidents. Two 'common' ones are whiplash
>and skin burn (from the bag fabric rubbing against skin).. and so? Give me
>these any day...

Against nothing at all? Why?

In article >,
Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:
>In case you are referrng to leaks while just driving along, there aren't
>any.
>
>As regards gas poisoning on air bag deployment, I am not aware of any
>reports, nor of any long-term effects. Could be that the survivors are so
>grateful to be alive that they don't care about a brief respiratory
>annoyance, which they might not notice anyway if they are otherwise injured.

_I_ sure as hell noticed it. It was pretty bad, even given the open
area of my Miata. And the airbag did me no good, contacting only my
right arm (scraping it) while my seat belt kept the rest of my body
from contacting it.

>Certainly air bags have given rise to new types of injury, or at least
>changed the injury profile in car accidents. Two 'common' ones are whiplash
>and skin burn (from the bag fabric rubbing against skin).. and so? Give me
>these any day...

Against nothing at all? Why?

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf10/11590_web.pdf


i really have heard of people with major difficulites from the chemical
hazards (Sodium Azide, Nitrogen, phosgene) associated with air bags.
and if those "airbags are the cure" folks would kindly look at the link
i provided above (Federal Register / Vol. 60,November 9, 1995 / Proposed
Rules) you will see that they do not talk about any respiratory
illnessess associated with the dangerous chemicals. Please also check
http://dms.dot.gov/reports/ and do a simple search on air bags, and no
where will you find any mention of respiratory illnesses associated with
the chemical hazards. Please check your MSDS (Material Safety Data
Sheet) for each of these chemicals and see if you think that "the cure
hurts a few a little bit".. Just pray to whatever entity you pray to
that you are never inflicted with this type of injury. I am assuming
that some would prefer a closed casket rather than a respiratory illness
to live with a long time...

please forgive my harshness, but i am new at this and i am in the
process of researching this and would appreciate information that is
useful and not blatantly disregarding my honest approaches at trying to
help ALL.

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dan Gates wrote:
>
>
>>Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
>>that have to use it.
>
>
> Christ, here we go again with another true-believer airbag freak who
> hasn't looked at the actual numbers, hasn't seen that statistically one is
> safer with a 3-point belt and NO airbag than one is with a 3-point belt
> AND an airbag, but nevertheless he's absolutely sure that airbatgs are the
> "cure".

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf10/11590_web.pdf


i really have heard of people with major difficulites from the chemical
hazards (Sodium Azide, Nitrogen, phosgene) associated with air bags.
and if those "airbags are the cure" folks would kindly look at the link
i provided above (Federal Register / Vol. 60,November 9, 1995 / Proposed
Rules) you will see that they do not talk about any respiratory
illnessess associated with the dangerous chemicals. Please also check
http://dms.dot.gov/reports/ and do a simple search on air bags, and no
where will you find any mention of respiratory illnesses associated with
the chemical hazards. Please check your MSDS (Material Safety Data
Sheet) for each of these chemicals and see if you think that "the cure
hurts a few a little bit".. Just pray to whatever entity you pray to
that you are never inflicted with this type of injury. I am assuming
that some would prefer a closed casket rather than a respiratory illness
to live with a long time...

please forgive my harshness, but i am new at this and i am in the
process of researching this and would appreciate information that is
useful and not blatantly disregarding my honest approaches at trying to
help ALL.

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dan Gates wrote:
>
>
>>Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
>>that have to use it.
>
>
> Christ, here we go again with another true-believer airbag freak who
> hasn't looked at the actual numbers, hasn't seen that statistically one is
> safer with a 3-point belt and NO airbag than one is with a 3-point belt
> AND an airbag, but nevertheless he's absolutely sure that airbatgs are the
> "cure".

Linda, you don't help your cause any when you bitch at me. I'm on your
side. Pay attention and take the time to attribute your quotes correctly.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf10/11590_web.pdf
>
>
> i really have heard of people with major difficulites from the chemical
> hazards (Sodium Azide, Nitrogen, phosgene) associated with air bags.
> and if those "airbags are the cure" folks would kindly look at the link
> i provided above (Federal Register / Vol. 60,November 9, 1995 / Proposed
> Rules) you will see that they do not talk about any respiratory
> illnessess associated with the dangerous chemicals. Please also check
> http://dms.dot.gov/reports/ and do a simple search on air bags, and no
> where will you find any mention of respiratory illnesses associated with
> the chemical hazards. Please check your MSDS (Material Safety Data
> Sheet) for each of these chemicals and see if you think that "the cure
> hurts a few a little bit".. Just pray to whatever entity you pray to
> that you are never inflicted with this type of injury. I am assuming
> that some would prefer a closed casket rather than a respiratory illness
> to live with a long time...
>
> please forgive my harshness, but i am new at this and i am in the
> process of researching this and would appreciate information that is
> useful and not blatantly disregarding my honest approaches at trying to
> help ALL.
>
> linda
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dan Gates wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sometimes the cure hurts a few a little bit. But it saves most people
> >>that have to use it.
> >
> >
> > Christ, here we go again with another true-believer airbag freak who
> > hasn't looked at the actual numbers, hasn't seen that statistically one is
> > safer with a 3-point belt and NO airbag than one is with a 3-point belt
> > AND an airbag, but nevertheless he's absolutely sure that airbatgs are the
> > "cure".
>