air bag injuries due to propellant chemicals

Matt, I type so much and I suffer from neck and shoulder and wrist and
hand injuries and capitalizing things is just not a priority. Sorry if
it makes me appear to be a 10 year old. I will try to remember the
PROPER etiquette in writing to this group. My opinion (like everyone
else has one)is the content of the message, rather than the punctuation,
capitalization.

linda

 

Matt, Just keep reminding me. I am not a 10 year old.. but I can always
use constructive criticism like everyone else can.

Thanks,

Linda

 

Not as such, no. European airbags are less likely to deploy, since their
vehicle-speed and vehicle-deceleration thresholds are higher. They are
also smaller in volume, which means a lower concentration of Sodium Azide
byproducts and talc in the air in the car after deployment -- so the
likelihood of exposure is lower, and the extent of exposure if it occurs
is lesser.

No, but the first US airbags (GM full-size cars, '74-'77, as a factory
option that included the deletion of seatbelts) used a completely harmless
propellant: Pressurized Nitrogen.

 

You're using Thunderbird.
On the menu bar, there's an entry called "Help."
Click on it, and go from there.
There's a lot of information there about how to use the newsreager
you're using.
BTW, "NG" is a contraction of "newsgroup."

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

Could you please post some URLs that show that?
Thanks.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

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

 

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"

 

Frig! The world is being made to your level.

 

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.

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

Ted

 

I try! 8^)

And she did.

Thanks!

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

 

Linda,
You might like this e-mail I received a few years ago:

I am a very sick little boy. My mother is typing this for me, because I
can't. She is crying. Don't cry, Mommy! Mommy is always sad, but she
says it's not my fault. I asked her if it was God's fault, but she
didn't answer and only started crying harder, so I don't ask her that
any more.

The reason she is so sad is because I'm so sick.

I was born without a body. It doesn't hurt, except when I try to
breathe. The doctors gave me an artificial body. It is a burlap bag
filled with leaves. The doctors said that was the best they could do on
account of us having no money or insurance.

I would like to have a body transplant, but we need more money. Mommy
doesn't work because she said nobody hires crying people.

I said, "Don't cry, Mommy," and she hugged my burlap bag. Mommy always
gives me hugs, even though she's allergic to burlap and it makes her
sneeze and chafes her real bad.

I hope you will help me. You can help me if you mindlessly forward this
email to everyone you know. Mindlessly forward it to people you don't
know, too. Dr. Johansen said that for every person you mindlessly
forward this email to, Bill Gates will team up with AOL and send a
nickel to NASA.

With that funding, NASA will collect prayers from school children all
over America and have the astronauts take them up into space so that the
angels can hear them better. Then they will come back to earth and go
to the Pope, and he will take up a collection in church and send all the
money to the doctors. The doctors could help me get better, then.
Maybe one day I will be able to play baseball. Right now I can only be
third base.

Every time you mindlessly forward this letter, the astronauts can take
another prayer to the angels and my dream will be closer to coming true.

Please help me. Mommy is so sad, and I want a body.

If you don't mindlessly forward this email, that's okay. Mommy says
you're a mean and heartless bastard who doesn't care about a poor little
boy with only a head. She says that if you don't stew in the raw pit of
your own guilt-ridden stomach, she hopes you die a long slow, horrible
death and then burn forever in Hell. What kind of cruel person are you
that you can't take 5 freakin' minutes to mindlessly forward this to
all your friends so that they can feel guilt and shame about ignoring a
poor, bodiless 9-year-old boy?

Please help me. I try to be happy, but it's hard. I wish I had a
kitty. I wish I could hold a kitty. I wish I could hold a kitty that
wouldn't chew on me and try to bury its shit in the leaves of my burlap
body. I wish that very much.

Thank you and God bless,
Billy "Smiles" Evans
(the boy with just a head, and a burlap sack for a body)

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

 

You forgot Religion and Guns... These should each provide at least 500
additional responses.

Bob

 

To Bill and Ted ONLY:

i can do two things in regards to your being rude and mean....

1. tuck my tail and run ....

2. remind my self that the world is filled with assholes and go on...i
like option 2...

Your posts are the world's greatest proof of reincarnation; no one could
get that dumb in just one lifetime.

 

Linda,

I'm glad you figured out that "DHMO" is what most people commonly call
"water". I agree that Bill directing you to the H2O web site was mean
spirited, but I believe that Bill succeeded in driving home the point that
you need to do your research first and be knowledgeable of the facts before
you post if you want others to support your views.

Unfortunately the Internet in general and NewsGroup (NG) forums like this
one in particular, make it all too easy for anyone and everyone to post
anything they want (even blatantly erroneous information) and portray that
information as factual. (Note that I am not saying your original post was
not factual, just that I, like most of the other experienced NG readers took
it with "a grain of salt".) If you want to be taken seriously, then you
absolutely need to do the homework and post the facts along with
references/sources so that intelligent people can take a look and decide on
their own.

By the way, part of the reason that you got the responses that you did is
because the purpose for the existence of this NG (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
is to allow Chrysler car owners to share their experiences regarding
ownership and maintenance of their vehicles. As such, your message was
likely considered initially as "off topic" by most or in the worst case, a
"troll" sent simply to elicit as many replies as possible to "harvest" email
accounts for sale to "spammers", etc.

After you have been around NGs for a while, you will come to learn that most
of the communications that occurs is polite and respectful, but there will
always be some who are disrespectful to others. There are many reasons why
people behave the way that they do and I won't begin to explain the actions
of others. Suffice it to say that you need to be thick skinned, open to
others ideas/input, and exercise good judgment before choosing to reply to
post, especially when it is in response to a personal attack.

Welcome to UseNet. It really is a wonderful tool for finding out about just
about anything and learning from others if you have the patience to sort out
facts from fiction.

Bob

 

Thank you Bob. i am a newby in all areas of this research and thought i
could learn some things... apparently, i have learned that i am a
typical stupid **** and i don't use proper capitalization, and am
probably related to some douche bag who sues at the drop of a
hat...also, i am fodder for 'experienced NGs". i will become thick
skinned, and i will learn... i am not a spammer, troll, etc..
i am here to learn.... and i guess i have learned the first and the
hardest lesson... and if otherrs think they have heard the last of me,
well, they need to think again!

thanks for the info...

linda

p.s. please excuse the fact that i wrote ABOVE your email, instead of
below it, this is one lesson i can't seem to understand.. but if that
is the worst i do, then people will have to deal with it...

thanks again...

linda

 

Come to think of it, Mozilla, and I believe Thunderbird, have a message
threading bug where if you click on get new messages while the thread is
open, all new messages appear at the bottom without being graphically
attached to their parent post. Maybe that's what is confusing Linda. I
don't know why they haven't got around to fixing that bug (which has
been around since version 1.2 or 1.3, IIRC), but what I do is just close
and reopen the thread.

Also, Linda, if you haven't already, try to use the threaded message
view so you'll get a hierarchal view of messages. That should make it
easier for you to keep track of who's responding to whom.

 

Linda,

I personally prefer "top posting" as you have done (and I have done here as
well). This is the way my newsreader works by default and also allows me to
read threads in order so I don't need to waste time skipping down to the
body of each message.

I have received criticism from time to time that I should not "top post",
but this has generally not been a large issue since everyone has a different
opinion on what is best and there is no universal agreement. That said, I
believe that most will agree that the content of the message is much more
important than its formatting (top posting, spelling, and even
capitalization too!) There are times when I will include my message at the
end or even in the body of the previous response since this allows me to use
the quote as a reference. This works very well when replying with a point
by point response.

As to the rough treatment you were given, I speculate that some of this may
come from the fact that this has historically been a male-dominated NG and
some of the old timers have had heated exchanges with a woman who used to
frequently post here by the name of Charlene Blake (dare I use her name
here?) She used to post a lot of non-factual, emotional rants regarding
her Minivan's problems and Chrysler's lack of responsibility/accountability
to their customers.

Good luck with your cause. As to my perspective, I've never been involved
in a major accident when the air bags have deployed, but was in a couple of
accidents in which they would have if the vehicles had been so equipped
during the late 70's and early 80's. As such, I have no immediate first
hand experience and more importantly, no experience with air bag deployment
in my extended family (parents, in-laws, brothers, sisters, brother-in
laws, sister-in-laws, nieces, nephews, etc. (35-40 drivers and vehicles) I
do know co-workers who have been in major accidents and who have had their
air bags deploy. In a few cases, they told me that they had slight burns on
their hands from the gas venting, and they all said the bag deployed with
incredible force. They all were thankful to have it and felt their injuries
would have been far worse without the bag. As such, I've got my perspective
so was not as open to your post as I possibly should have been. I did
appreciate Dan Stern's reply, but to be totally honest have trouble relating
to the issue since I don't see it as black and white that they are a
problem.

Bob

 

Linda, thanks for the open discussion and civil responses. A breath of
fresh air.

Three point restraints were mentioned. How about crumple zones? How
about roundabouts to avoid the crashes in the first place?

What is your understanding of the three crashes involved in automobile
crash fatalities?

 

The MSDS for Sodium Azide is in the "holy shit" range:

<http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s2906.htm>
Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 2 - (Moderate)
Reactivity Rating: 4 - Extreme (Explosive)
Contact Rating: 3 - Severe (Life)

Inhalation:
May cause irritation to the respiratory tract and mucous membranes,
sore throat, coughing, dizziness, shortness of breath, and
fainting. May be absorbed through inhalation. Symptoms may parallel
ingestion.

Ingestion:
Highly Toxic! May cause breathlessness, pulmonary edema and rapid
heart beat within 5 minutes. Nausea, vomiting, headache, restlessness,
and diarrhea may occur within 15 minutes. Other symptoms may include
low blood pressure, abnormal breathing, reduced body temperature,
reduced body pH, convulsions, collapse and death.

Need I go on?

Anyway, fortunately most if not all of the azide deflagerates in the airbag
explosion. Unfortunately, it decomposes to nitrogen (N2), which is
perfectly harmless, and sodium (Na) which ain't. If the sodium reacts
with water (e.g. humidity, or your mucous membranes) you get NaOH (lye)
<http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/msdsfiles/msdssodiumhydroxide.htm>

Except for not being explosive, NaOH is about as nasty as azide. The
other stuff they put in airbags to try to prevent the free sodium from
floating around isn't much fun to breathe either; if it works perfectly
you get "only" silicate glass (which you don't want to breathe
either), otherwise you get sodium and potassium oxides (quite nasty)