air bag injuries due to propellant chemicals

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".
>

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> 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. 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...

As usual, Dori, you are commenting without knowing what the hell you're
talking about. You live in a country that has ECE-spec airbags, which have
a much higher vehicle speed deployment threshold and are much smaller and
slower, therefore far less capable of inflicting injury, because they are
designed around the assumption of a BELTED occupant. In North America,
airbags are legally required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 to be
calibrated so as to "save" an UNBELTED 50th-percentile "male" dummy.

DS

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> 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. 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...

As usual, Dori, you are commenting without knowing what the hell you're
talking about. You live in a country that has ECE-spec airbags, which have
a much higher vehicle speed deployment threshold and are much smaller and
slower, therefore far less capable of inflicting injury, because they are
designed around the assumption of a BELTED occupant. In North America,
airbags are legally required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 to be
calibrated so as to "save" an UNBELTED 50th-percentile "male" dummy.

DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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.

decades ago all i cared about was what i looked like, and what party i
was going to ... :-)
>
>
>>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 have talked to people who say that even people who work in the
industries won't make comments
because they are in fear. they have signed waivers, etc. i also have
heard that auto companies have made settlements
to keep these out of the public eye.
>
>
>>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.
>

then what can be done? talking to senators, representatives? find
lawyers who would litigate these matters?
find people who are injured and have them go to a congressional hearing?
i am thinking large now.. these other folks have
me all worked up over their inability to research properly before they
type.
>
>>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.
>
if you find that, make sure you have a separate littler house down the
road for me and my disabled son...
zillions dollars would be great....

what else can i do? where else can i turn? i am not good at making a
web page, but i will learn and give it a try.. do
you think that would help any?

>>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.

Daniel, thank you for being the voice of reason today.. .i appreciate
your knowledge, and your understanding....

you can email me on my regular email. i think i found your website, can
i email you my email addy? and lets talk some more without
having to be bothered by people who are not wanting to research these
items.. i can help research for you on your headlight issue...

linda

> DS

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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.

decades ago all i cared about was what i looked like, and what party i
was going to ... :-)
>
>
>>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 have talked to people who say that even people who work in the
industries won't make comments
because they are in fear. they have signed waivers, etc. i also have
heard that auto companies have made settlements
to keep these out of the public eye.
>
>
>>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.
>

then what can be done? talking to senators, representatives? find
lawyers who would litigate these matters?
find people who are injured and have them go to a congressional hearing?
i am thinking large now.. these other folks have
me all worked up over their inability to research properly before they
type.
>
>>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.
>
if you find that, make sure you have a separate littler house down the
road for me and my disabled son...
zillions dollars would be great....

what else can i do? where else can i turn? i am not good at making a
web page, but i will learn and give it a try.. do
you think that would help any?

>>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.

Daniel, thank you for being the voice of reason today.. .i appreciate
your knowledge, and your understanding....

you can email me on my regular email. i think i found your website, can
i email you my email addy? and lets talk some more without
having to be bothered by people who are not wanting to research these
items.. i can help research for you on your headlight issue...

linda

> DS

daniel, i am new at trying to figure out the newsgroup reply system... i
inadverently, apparently, sent the reply to you.. it was meant for those
other folks who i felt belittled this serious issue.. MANY MANY
APOLOGIES....

please forgive...

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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".
>>

daniel, i am new at trying to figure out the newsgroup reply system... i
inadverently, apparently, sent the reply to you.. it was meant for those
other folks who i felt belittled this serious issue.. MANY MANY
APOLOGIES....

please forgive...

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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".
>>

If you are just researching this now, why are you condemning the airbags
already! Typical stupid **** who wants to complain, and sue the
manufacturers for having airbags. If you don't like them, take them out of
the ****ing car!

Probably related to the douche bag who sued Honda for not having an airbag
in the car, before the were mandated.

"linda" > wrote in message
...
> 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".

If you are just researching this now, why are you condemning the airbags
already! Typical stupid **** who wants to complain, and sue the
manufacturers for having airbags. If you don't like them, take them out of
the ****ing car!

Probably related to the douche bag who sued Honda for not having an airbag
in the car, before the were mandated.

"linda" > wrote in message
...
> 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".

this does not deserve a reply. but i am sending one anyway.. if you have
to resort to calling me names, then by all means feel free to.
i have been called worse.. but do so in private
) do not let these other individuals who are
trying to find real information be subjected to your apparent ignorance
and lack of intelligence to properly state your case without using
vulgarity.

linda watkins


feel free to email me there and blast me on my private email. i can at
least delete you on my private email.. and can report you also...

linda


deadbeat wrote:
> If you are just researching this now, why are you condemning the airbags
> already! Typical stupid **** who wants to complain, and sue the
> manufacturers for having airbags. If you don't like them, take them out of
> the ****ing car!
>
> Probably related to the douche bag who sued Honda for not having an airbag
> in the car, before the were mandated.
>
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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".
>
>
>