Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> ...lower production cost.
>


it occurs to me that if any one of these folks had a child, family
member, loved one that got very hurt and possibly disabled as a result
of the chemicals released in the air bags, things would be different.
VERY DIFFERENT!

and if men got pregnant, there would not be an argument, we would have
PRO-CHOICE!!!!!