Bill Putney wrote:
> 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^)
I did resent being called typical... that is NOT me. you can call me a
stupid ****... but i am not typical... :-)
>
> 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.?
i know of some people, who are seriously injured due to the chemicals in
the propellants. they never had issues with respiratory problems
before, they did not smoke, they did not have asthma, nothing.. however,
once the airbags went off, they started experiencing severe, debiliating
issues with their respiratory system. they have tried to get people to
believe them, but no one wants to look into it.. i have asked several
high agencies if there have been any problems, and i keep getting the
same run around.. maybe it is similiar to those people who were
experiencing severe diseases that affected few people (rare diseases).
the pharamaceutical companies would not research the possiblities of
drugs due to the high cost vs. low population. however, finally,
finally, in 1983 they passed the Orphan drug bill, which helped the
pharma's to defray costs to save lives.. maybe it will take an act of
congress to get this serious problem that only affects certain people to
be taken seriously. strange, though... how if it does not affect a lot
of folks, it is not taken seriously.....i have not personally been
affected by this, never had an airbag go off, never suffered the
physical damages caused by it. but that does not make my task in trying
to find info (for or against) any less important.
thank you for getting back to my original question. i never intended to
get into this kind of repartee, but i am not one to just sit back and
let an argument pass me by.. (i think this is genetic, as my family are
well known for "round table arguments on saturday nights"). :-)
maybe someone will find an article disputing this?????
i am still looking for info.... i don't think anyone ever thinks "lets
make this dangerous for people".. at least i hope not.
linda
>
> 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 =---