If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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". > |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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". >> |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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". >> |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|