linda wrote:

> i know how you feel, i asked a simple question, "Did anyone have any
> info concerning the hazards associated with the chemicals in the
> deployment of air bags?". no i have now been compared to someone i know
> nothing about, and criticized (for lack of capitalization) , and called
> names ( typical stupid ****)

Now now, Linda - no one here thinks that you are typical. 8^)

and accused of being related to someone
> ("douche bag"). apparently guys are just as bad as some asshole you
> named Charlene....

Getting back to your original question, in all seriousness: Have you
found out why they went with the chemicals that they did. I mean, I
doubt very seriously that the engineers involved in the evolution of the
air bag said to each other one day: "You know guys - this pure nitrogen
inflation gas works well, but it's too safe. We need to come up with
some additonal components that will hurt people and make them sick."
There had to be some technical reason that the other stuff was added -
like maybe to make the proper firing more reliable, or more consistent
over a very broad temperature range, or to prevent material
deterioration - you know - something besides "Lets' make this dangerous
for people". Usually when something that has some known downsides is
incorporated, it's to gain an even greater benefit.

IOW, have you found out what was wrong with using, say, pure nitrogen
that prompted them to improve the operation of the air bags, or have you
considered looking for that info.?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---