air bag injuries due to propellant chemicals

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Big Bill wrote:

> >> 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.

> Could you please post some URLs that show that?

Already have. Go to www.scienceservingsociety.com and order the book
there.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:26:44 -0700, "deadbeat" > wrote:

>By the way George W. if you are watching this
>newsgroup, Osama is in Afganistan! Do you need a new map to go get him?

OBL is probably in Iran.
He needs dialisys 3 or 4 times a week; Afghanistan doesn't have
facilities he can use that often without being found out.
he needs a support network that would be much easier in Iran than
Afghanistan.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:26:44 -0700, "deadbeat" > wrote:

>By the way George W. if you are watching this
>newsgroup, Osama is in Afganistan! Do you need a new map to go get him?

OBL is probably in Iran.
He needs dialisys 3 or 4 times a week; Afghanistan doesn't have
facilities he can use that often without being found out.
he needs a support network that would be much easier in Iran than
Afghanistan.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"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

Frig! The world is being made to your level.

"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

Frig! The world is being made to your level.

"linda" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate all your input. Even the sarcastic ones. i am researching
> dangerous chemicals in our environment. i know that one little person
> cannot stop all the dangers in the world. i am only one person, but at
> least i am trying to do my part and i am not being sarcastic about it,
> with the exception of the offline remark i made to deadbeat about how
> much daimler chrysler was paying him to keep his mouth shut.and i
> apologize for that bad taste (however truthful) remark.
>

linda,

I think you need to really review this anti-airbag crusade your on. I think
your really misguided. Let's review the objections you have brought up.

1) airbags have dangerous chemicals. Well, this isn't a problem as long
as those dangerous chemicals aren't generally making their way into the
environment. Since most cars with airbags never are involved in collisions
where the airbags deploy, the only time that these dangerous chemicals
really have of getting into the environment is when the car goes to the
wrecking yard and is broken up for scrap. If the wrecker is routinely
throwing these unused airbags into the garbage, that is a problem. So
maybe if you are concerned about these chemicals you should be more
conerned with how these airbags are being disposed when the car is
broken up for scrap. And guess what - it so happens that there are
some states that are making it a lot harder for wreckers to remove these
undeployed bags and sell them on the used market, instead of removing
them and landfilling them. This is despite many industry recommendations
that undeployed airbags are perfectly usable, and at least one major
insurance company that requires them to be used when a vehicle is
repaired, if they are available. So maybe instead of trying to ban them
you should be trying to get those states to stop obstructing the creation
of a used market which would encourage wreckers to remove and not
landfill these bags.

2) airbags hurt people when they deploy. Well here is the long and
short of it. If you are wearing your seatbelt in a car that is involved in
a collision then in the overwhelming number of cases you aren't going to
be seriously injured by the deployment
of it's airbag. Which means that just about the only people who get
seriously maimed by a deploying airbag are idiots that don't wear their
seat belts. So, your crusading to ban airbags based on airbags hurting
people is pretty much a crusade to help idiots. So maybe instead of
crusading to basically help idiots you should crusade to get people to wear
their
seatbelts.

> wants to complain. i am a concerned citizen who wants a better, safer,
> cleaner environment for my future and the future of my children and my
> children's children.
>

If this is the case and you really want to make the most difference then you
need to worry about the most dangerous chemicals that are emitted from
a car every day - the tailpipe exhaust. And we all know just how to reduce
these, everyone does. The answer - drive less And how do you do that,
well here are some ways:

a) if you live in the city experiment with different routes to learn which
ones
are less congested and save you time.
b) get in the habit of running errands on your way to and from work, instead
of
saving them all up for the weekend or evening. Or have your spouse or SO
run
your errands that are convenient for him while you run his errands that are
convenient
for you.
c) for errands that you have to do on the weekend, plan them so you do them
at once, on a route that uses minimum time to complete.
d) move closer to your work.
e) carpool with others at work.
f) choose social venues that are closer to you rather than further away
g) spend more time at home, eat in instead of eating out, watch movies from
netflix instead of driving across the city to the metroplex.

All of those things will do FAR MORE to help the environment than banning
airbags.

You know linda, people are always complaining that they never have enough
time in their lives to do things they want to do. Well a big time consumer
is
just driving around needlessly, don't you think?

You seem to think it's your responsibility to crusade for the environment,
well fine.
But it is easy to crusade among strangers that you don't know. If you
really feel
called to do this then your a faker unless your willing to crusade among
your
friends and family - where you are going to be more worried about offending
someone, than here.

If your principles aren't strong enough for you to take this list I just
posted
and run around to all your friends and family, and press them to agree to
try
to do some of the things on this list, then you have no business coming into
this forum here and trying to pull this concern for the environment crap
here.

Ted

"linda" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate all your input. Even the sarcastic ones. i am researching
> dangerous chemicals in our environment. i know that one little person
> cannot stop all the dangers in the world. i am only one person, but at
> least i am trying to do my part and i am not being sarcastic about it,
> with the exception of the offline remark i made to deadbeat about how
> much daimler chrysler was paying him to keep his mouth shut.and i
> apologize for that bad taste (however truthful) remark.
>

linda,

I think you need to really review this anti-airbag crusade your on. I think
your really misguided. Let's review the objections you have brought up.

1) airbags have dangerous chemicals. Well, this isn't a problem as long
as those dangerous chemicals aren't generally making their way into the
environment. Since most cars with airbags never are involved in collisions
where the airbags deploy, the only time that these dangerous chemicals
really have of getting into the environment is when the car goes to the
wrecking yard and is broken up for scrap. If the wrecker is routinely
throwing these unused airbags into the garbage, that is a problem. So
maybe if you are concerned about these chemicals you should be more
conerned with how these airbags are being disposed when the car is
broken up for scrap. And guess what - it so happens that there are
some states that are making it a lot harder for wreckers to remove these
undeployed bags and sell them on the used market, instead of removing
them and landfilling them. This is despite many industry recommendations
that undeployed airbags are perfectly usable, and at least one major
insurance company that requires them to be used when a vehicle is
repaired, if they are available. So maybe instead of trying to ban them
you should be trying to get those states to stop obstructing the creation
of a used market which would encourage wreckers to remove and not
landfill these bags.

2) airbags hurt people when they deploy. Well here is the long and
short of it. If you are wearing your seatbelt in a car that is involved in
a collision then in the overwhelming number of cases you aren't going to
be seriously injured by the deployment
of it's airbag. Which means that just about the only people who get
seriously maimed by a deploying airbag are idiots that don't wear their
seat belts. So, your crusading to ban airbags based on airbags hurting
people is pretty much a crusade to help idiots. So maybe instead of
crusading to basically help idiots you should crusade to get people to wear
their
seatbelts.

> wants to complain. i am a concerned citizen who wants a better, safer,
> cleaner environment for my future and the future of my children and my
> children's children.
>

If this is the case and you really want to make the most difference then you
need to worry about the most dangerous chemicals that are emitted from
a car every day - the tailpipe exhaust. And we all know just how to reduce
these, everyone does. The answer - drive less And how do you do that,
well here are some ways:

a) if you live in the city experiment with different routes to learn which
ones
are less congested and save you time.
b) get in the habit of running errands on your way to and from work, instead
of
saving them all up for the weekend or evening. Or have your spouse or SO
run
your errands that are convenient for him while you run his errands that are
convenient
for you.
c) for errands that you have to do on the weekend, plan them so you do them
at once, on a route that uses minimum time to complete.
d) move closer to your work.
e) carpool with others at work.
f) choose social venues that are closer to you rather than further away
g) spend more time at home, eat in instead of eating out, watch movies from
netflix instead of driving across the city to the metroplex.

All of those things will do FAR MORE to help the environment than banning
airbags.

You know linda, people are always complaining that they never have enough
time in their lives to do things they want to do. Well a big time consumer
is
just driving around needlessly, don't you think?

You seem to think it's your responsibility to crusade for the environment,
well fine.
But it is easy to crusade among strangers that you don't know. If you
really feel
called to do this then your a faker unless your willing to crusade among
your
friends and family - where you are going to be more worried about offending
someone, than here.

If your principles aren't strong enough for you to take this list I just
posted
and run around to all your friends and family, and press them to agree to
try
to do some of the things on this list, then you have no business coming into
this forum here and trying to pull this concern for the environment crap
here.

Ted

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> linda wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Linda,
> Have I got a cause for you! Take a look at http://www.dhmo.org.

Bill, you are a cruel, cruel *******. You know she's going to fall for this.
I loved the site though, particularly the MSDS!

Ted

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> linda wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Linda,
> Have I got a cause for you! Take a look at http://www.dhmo.org.

Bill, you are a cruel, cruel *******. You know she's going to fall for this.
I loved the site though, particularly the MSDS!

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Linda,
>>Have I got a cause for you! Take a look at http://www.dhmo.org.
>
>
> Bill, you are a cruel, cruel *******.

I try! 8^)

> You know she's going to fall for this.

And she did.

> I loved the site though, particularly the MSDS!

Thanks!

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 =---