Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear

[RandomGuy]

Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.

Here are a few things that I won't find in the report that the article talks about:

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Whether or not OMB returned a phone call won't be there.

"The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings "refutes the White House skepticism and denial" of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.

Oops here is one of the instances of "smog", but it wasn't the words of the author...

I won't find the words of Ms. Patton in that report.

Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.

But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.

Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.

"This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits," said Patton.

This entire passage regarding what environmentalists and health advocates say also won't be in the report. I think it is safe to assume that this is, indeed, what environmentalists and health advocates say.

Yet another bit where the usage of the word smog is not really the author's, but someone else entirely.

One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

Again, not items that will be in the report.

[RandomGuy]

Since somehow counting the number of times the word "smog" or "ozone" appears in the article is relevant:

"smog" 6 instances
"ozone" 16 instances

For what that is worth.

[RandomGuy]

Again, please show me what the report says that supports the article.

This is the second time I am asking this question

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

In this case I say it is reasonable to generally trust what the article says about the report.

WC says that the report is inaccurate, and then says it is up to me to prove that what the article says about the report is supported by the report.

This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (click here for a full list of logical fallacies from Nizkor.org, a website devoted to poking holes in the stupidity of holocaust deniers)

All I have said is that I have no reason NOT to take the article as reasonably accurate.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't respond till now because I didn't have the time to waste on this stupidity. I simply cannot believe you continue to support the atricle.

So your entire assertion that the article is inaccurate boils down to the semantic difference between "ozone" and "smog" and counting how many times the word "smog" appears in the article?

That's your "A" game? The best you can do?

No, it is not my "A" game. I am simply showing how the assessment that "SMOG" being the issue is not addressed in the report. I pointed out enough errors to show the author is not trustworthy.

Here are a few things that I won't find in the report that the article talks about:

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Whether or not OMB returned a phone call won't be there.

No Sherlock. I addressed that, or did you not understand that part? The author is clearly a liar, or not competent to parse scientific material. This cannot be trusted as truth. From what truth is based upon, what is the context? I have asked for quotes and context, right?

Oops here is one of the instances of "smog", but it wasn't the words of the author...

My God... You are making me believe you are a stupid ignoramus. Didn't I say:

Names, position, and what did they say in context? The only indication I see to support this are the words quoted from the president of Clean Air Watch which I would say are very likely biased. The article also cites the Environmental Defense Fund.

I won't find the words of Ms. Patton in that report.

Duh... I sure would like to see them, but do you really trust pundits without verifying what they say?

This entire passage regarding what environmentalists and health advocates say also won't be in the report. I think it is safe to assume that this is, indeed, what environmentalists and health advocates say.

OK, That I agree with. But is their word gospel? I'd say no.

Yet another bit where the usage of the word smog is not really the author's, but someone else entirely.

One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.

When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths.

As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.

OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.

In response, the EPA removed "all references to quantified ozone benefits" in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.

Again, not items that will be in the report.

Actuially, part of it is. On page 3:

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS OF HEALTH STUDIES

The associations between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the recent health studies appear robust, but several factors create considerable uncertainty about them. Those factors can affect estimates of risk of ozone-related mortality in various ways. In some cases, the factors would cause an underestimation of risk; in other cases, an overestimation. On balance, the committee considers the evidence from the studies to be strong enough for use in deriving risk estimates, but the various factors and their potential effects on the estimates should be fully acknowledged.

I believe the rest is addressed in the report too. Remember, the role and s ards between these two departments are different.

In this case I say it is reasonable to generally trust what the article says about the report.

WC says that the report is inaccurate, and then says it is up to me to prove that what the article says about the report is supported by the report.

Bull you ass.

I say the article is not accurate.

The report is very comprehensive.

I took the time to read it and learn a few terms I didn't know before. You have not yet acknowledged anything from the report. The article is likely accurate to what other people said, but it is still a false presentation. It is clear if you read and understand the report.

I don't care. Remain ignorant.

Have you read the reprort yet? Afraid to?

As for the general claim the administration denies that smog is a problem. I say bull to the general statement because it doesn't give any quantification. Again, at what levels were they asked to respond to? Without levels, the statement only appeals to the really ignorant and the really stupid. With the general question with no levels or examples given, the assumption could be somplace nice, where smog is no problem at all. Under what situation was the question asked and answered. Without that knowledge, the question is absolutely pointless.

This is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (click here for a full list of logical fallacies from Nizkor.org, a website devoted to poking holes in the stupidity of holocaust deniers)

All I have said is that I have no reason NOT to take the article as reasonably accurate.

Then you are ignorant. I have shown several reasons to show the articles inaccuracies. I have fulfilled my burden of proof, unless you don't understand the things I have said.

[Wild Cobra]

Check this out too:

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 of February 26, 2002 and E.O. 13422 of January 18, 2007

It's addressed in the report.

[RandomGuy]

Check this out too:

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 of February 26, 2002 and E.O. 13422 of January 18, 2007

It's addressed in the report.

Yes it is. Your point?

[RandomGuy]

dubya/Repug Admin has long, varied, and very clear pattern of culpability of protecting/promoting/right-wing business to the detriment of public health and the enviroment.

=========================

White House undermines EPA on cancer risks, GAO says

(AP) -- The Bush administration is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting nonscientists have a bigger - often secret - say, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The administration's decision to give the Defense Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program's credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At issue is the EPA's screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.

A new review process begun by the White House in 2004 is adding more speed bumps for EPA scientists, the GAO said in its report, which will be the subject of a Senate Environment Committee hearing Tuesday. A formal policy effectively doubling the number of steps was adopted two weeks ago.

Cancer risk assessments for nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue, the GAO said, blaming the new multiagency reviews for some of the delay. The EPA, for example, had promised to prepare assessments on 10 major toxic chemicals for external peer review by the end of 2007, but only two reached that stage.

GAO investigators said extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals.

The Pentagon, the Energy Department, NASA and other agencies - all of which could be severely affected by EPA risk findings - are being allowed to participate "at almost every step in the assessment process," said the GAO.

Those agencies, their private contractors and manufacturers of the chemicals face restrictions and major cleanup requirements, depending on the EPA's scientific determinations.

"By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the Senate committee's chairman. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

The EPA's risk assessment process "never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said.

The White House said the GAO is wrong in suggesting that the EPA has lost control in assessing the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.

"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin F. Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the GAO. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

One EPA scientist with extensive knowledge of the changes in the agency's risk assessment policies ridiculed the claim that the EPA still has the final say.

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

The GAO investigation focused on the EPA's computerized database, known as IRIS - the Integrated Risk Information System. It contains data on the human health effects of exposure to some 540 toxic chemicals in the environment. New chemicals are being proposed constantly for inclusion under a complicated assessment process that can take five years or more.

After years of stops and starts, the GAO said, the EPA has yet to determine carcinogen risks for a number of major chemicals such as:

-Naphthalene, a chemical used in rocket fuel as well as in manufacturing commercial products such as mothballs, dyes and insecticides.

-Trichloroethylene, or TCE, a widely used industrial degreasing agent.

-Perchloroethylene, or "perc," a chemical used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing and making chemical products.

-Formaldehyde, a colorless, flammable gas used to making building materials.

Environmentalists say these chemicals have been widely found at military bases and Superfund sites and in soil, lakes, streams and groundwater.

The findings, after an 18-month investigation by the congressional watchdog agency, come at a time of growing criticism from members of Congress and health and environmental advocates over alleged political interference in the government's science activities.

Last week, a confidential survey by an advocacy group of EPA scientists showed more than half of the 1,600 respondents worried about political pressure in their work.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is all part of a very clear pattern of a politically motivated administration doing everything it can to weaken environmental laws. Laws that end up benefitting us far more than they cost us, and that is something that all of WC's bull irrelevant posting of chemical reactions can't obfuscate.

[RandomGuy]

Well, I related "likely" to the wrong number. Likely normally means 66% or more. "Most" is the term normally meant 50% or more.

I didn't see it quantified in the press release. Is it there?


Yes, I am biased. As a skeptic, I need proof or reasonable assessments to change my mind.

... of everything, it seems, except this administration. What they say, you take as dogma.

I have yet to see you express an iota of doubt regarding anything the administration puts forth.

The fact that you can't even bring yourself to admit that they might have a poltical motivation to argue for/against something says volumes.

[RandomGuy]

dubya forces out/neutralizes/guts/edits yet another EPA/NASA/AAAS/FDA/USDA person or report that would enforce regulations, or in some way be anti-business. Many cases over the past 7 years where dubya negates /weakens/removes regulations to favor politics/religion/iedology over science.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,4655733.story

Can't blame Congress with this one.

Here is another brick in the wall. Yet another way in which the administration pushes in any way it can to weaken environmental laws.

[RandomGuy]

air study:

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080...ed_cities.html

This is a news story that has a doctor of pulminary medicine describing the overall bad effects of ozone, the effects of which even WC admits are deleterious to health.

Yet somehow, oddly, we shouldn't consider the benefits of reducing such pollution to the overall health of populations. "The evidence isn't clear" according to the administration.

(shrugs)

This is exactly the kind of thing, word for word, that the tobacco companies used to say. They were very motivated to spin the science, and they did, unabashedly.

When the Bush administration, with its strong business links and overall commitment to easing pollution restrictions whereever and whenever possible, starts saying things like "the science isn't there" we should take that argument as dogma, unflinchingly, and without any skepticism. Because what? Some pretentious ass can post some chemical reactions, and count the number of times the word "smog" is mentioned in an AP article?

Good critical thinking and HONEST skepticism requires looking at the motivations on both sides of any issue, and subjecting the side with something to gain to a little more skepticism and fact checking.

[RandomGuy]

Here's a good one.

[The article is inaccurate when talking about what the report said.]

The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies "should give little or no weight" to such arguments ... [that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits]

Future RIAs should give little or no weight to the assumption that there is no causal association between estimated reductions in premature mortality and reduced ozone exposure... Because short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths, future regulatory-impact analyses (RIAs) concerning ozone-control measures should include the benefits of reduced mortality risk.

Looks pretty accurate from here.

Another fault that WC lists of the article is that is doesn't talk about what levels would be safe.

THIS IS ING STUPID, BECAUSE NEITHER DOES THE REPORT, AND THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE REPORT.

The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.

In addition, the committee examined research based on large population groups to find how changes in ozone air concentration could affect mortality, specifically to determine the existence of a threshold -- a concentration of ozone below which exposure poses no risk of death. The committee concluded that if a threshold exists, it is probably at a concentration below the current public health standard.

Neither talked about specific levels that would be safe, but this is the level of proof required by our resident "skeptic".

WC has yet show by any direct quote of how the article was inaccurate. His claim, his burden of proof. To prove what he says, he needs to show two things:

1) A direct, inaccurate quote.

and

2) A direct, contradictory quote from the report.

Ask yourself, why has he not done so?

[Wild Cobra]

Random, again, you have no perspective.

What are the relavant levels that the administratuion said are not a problem?

LEVELS PLEASE

The article links the administration saying smog is not a problem. At what levels did the administration say it isn't a problem.

This is an unscrupulous hit piece.

Roll, all your arguments together however you want. They do not explain what I have repeatedly asked. The sum of the article is propaganda.

[RandomGuy]

The sum of the article is propaganda.

Propaganda? Perhaps.

BUT

You have yet to prove your claim that it is inaccurate, other than some weak-ass attempt at counting the number of times "smog" is mentioned.

You have provably lied, spun the truth, and lamely attempted to obfuscate the wider issues, while falsely trying to cloak yourself in objectivity.

Here is another honesty check for you:

Can propaganda be truthful?

[RandomGuy]

LEVELS PLEASE

Here is another honesty check:

What was the purpose of the report?

I will give you a quid pro quo for this one. I will give you an answer to what level would be dangerous, IF you can sum up, in one sentence, what the purpose of the report was, i.e. what question did it attempt to answer?

[boutons_]

If the Repugs' (environmental) lips are moving, they are lying:

Why did the EPA fire a respected toxicologist?

"eight scientists that served as consultants or members of EPA science advisory panels while getting research support from the chemical industry to study the chemicals under review. Two scientists were actually employed by companies that made or worked with manufacturers of the chemicals under review."

"EPA summarily fired Rice even though it had honored her just a few years before with one of its most prestigious scientific awards for “exceptionally high-quality research into lead’s toxicity.” Why" Because the American Chemistry Council asked the agency to fire her."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wdt050708.php

==============

It's total waste of time to discuss environmental destruction with Repugs or conservatives.

Sorta like discussing science with Hagee, Parsons, Bible-thumpers, etc.

[RandomGuy]

It's total waste of time to discuss environmental destruction with Repugs or conservatives.

Sorta like discussing science with Hagee, Parsons, Bible-thumpers, etc.

(shrugs)

I don't delude myself into thinking I can convince a zealot that they are being biased and unfair.

I can, however, expose the dishonesty and logical fallacies used by such people.

My hope is that anybody who might be sitting on the fence or tempted to give into the irrational dogma of the anti-environmental movement will give it a MUCH harder look when they claim something.

Too often, their "facts" turn out to be either bad science, bad economics, or both, as is the case here.

[Wild Cobra]

You have yet to prove your claim that it is inaccurate,

I have proven the article to be innacurate. I'm sorry if youi don't see that.

Game over.

You lose.

You lose because you don't understand my points to counter.

[RandomGuy]

I have proven the article to be innacurate. I'm sorry if youi don't see that.

Game over.

You lose.

You lose because you don't understand my points to counter.

Clap.

Clap.

Clap.

I understand perfectly well.

You have slain the strawmen of your own making. Congratulations, you have graduated to first-class hack.

But hey, assume I really am stupid.

Show me exactly how you "proved" the article inaccurate, because I re-read your posts, and you have done little more than chest-thumping that I can find.

[RandomGuy]

Ah, it. I will just sum up your "proof" for you, because I have given up on waiting for you to be honest enough or not lazy enough to do so.

This article has very little merit in my eyes... I find it offensive that the article does not talk anout levels... (provides data on ozone from a fact sheet)

As for lower doses causing cancer. Possibly. Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

The article didn't mention cancer at all. I find it offensive that you would either attempt a strawman, or be too lazy to really read the article. I assume it was laziness and not stupidity.

the article switches from smog to ozone and makes the uniformed reader think smog is ozone.

They talk about smog, which most people can relate to, then use ozone as the scare tactic. What good is the article when they never define levels. Until such author stop exchanging accurate word usage from reports with their own sensationalized words, I am an automatic skeptic.

You go on repeatedly to make the same two points, over and over.

To demonstrate that I fully understand what you are saying I will restate what you posted in my own words.

The two points you are making are:

1) The word "smog" and the word "ozone" are not interchangible, and therefore the article is inaccurate because it uses the words interchagibly.

and

2) The article doesn't talk about levels of ozone and specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate, therefore the article is inaccurate.

You have also pointed out the following:

4) There is a certain level of naturally occuring ozone.
5) Ozone will eventually combine with other molecules and remove itself from the lower atmosphere naturally.
6) Lots of manmade sources of ozone exist, such as power lines, and electric motors, that aren't specifically from the burning of fossil fuels.

I have already addressed point 1). "Smog" and "ozone air pollution" are close enough in general meaning to be reasonably interchangible.

To prove that this is NOT a reasonable subs ution, you would have to show three things:

a)smog, as it is generally used, usually does NOT include ozone.
b)ozone in general is not a reasonable indicator of the overall level of air pollution from what is commonly accepted as "smog".
c)the author used the word smog in such a way as to outweigh his usage of the correct term "ozone air pollution"

This is a reasonable level of proof that is required for you to "prove" 1).
The best you have done, is to make a half-hearted attempt at proving the third bit, c). You counted the number of times that the word "smog" is used in the article, i.e. six. The part where you go off into dishonesty/laziness, is that you then failed to count the number of times the word "ozone" was used, at sixteen.
The only evidence that you offer for a) is your opinion "Ozone can be a very small component of smog. Smog is not ozone." I noticed that you couched your bit here "can be". I think you are attempting to be intentionally misleading here. "can be a very small component" is not the same as "usually is a very small component".

I have also addressed number 2). Neither the article, nor the report the article was about required an assumption of any level.

This is where you started constructing your strawman:
"We can't believe the author/article/report, because they don't talk about acceptable or dangerous levels."

This is a strawman because the report and the article didn't attempt to set levels or even specify them. The entire premise of the report was whether it was reasonable to include the cost of ozone-related health problems in the cost/benefit analysis of legistation.

Your underlying assumption that "specifying levels of ozone are required to be accurate" is proven to be false by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point the article was making.

In your own words:

Ozone is probaly the most harmful free radical out there.

and when asked: "Please state the level of ozone you would be comfortable being exposed to for 12 hours out of every 24 for 20 years. "

You respond:

I don't know, put it would be in parts per trillion since ozone is so damaging to organic life.

YOU YOURSELF IMPLY THAT IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS OF HEALTH DAMAGE FROM OZONE IN SUCH AN ANALYSIS.

I will get to the rest of it (yet again), later.

[Wild Cobra]

Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is. That's all I'll repeat. This is a waste of my time.

[RandomGuy]

Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is. That's all I'll repeat. This is a waste of my time.

Translation:

"I got my hat handed to me, and will fall back on something I think I can win with."

The term nitrogen oxide typically refers to any binary compound of oxygen and nitrogen, or to a mixture of such compounds:

Nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen(II) oxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrogen(IV) oxide
Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen (I) oxide
Dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), nitrogen(II, IV) oxide
Dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), nitrogen(IV) oxide
Dinitrogen pentoxide (N2O5), nitrogen(V) oxide

Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels

Start with NO not being a precursor to O3. NO2 is.

Again, yet another case where you either can't read, or aren't being honest.

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS THAT "NO" IS THE PRECURSOR TO O3 (ozone).

[RandomGuy]

This is where confirmation bias invites failure of reason, and why one should be su ious of people who can't admit they are wrong, and can't admit when someone they might disagree with has a point.

If you are incapable of admitting the possibility that you might be wrong, you are not a scientist. Period.

[Wild Cobra]

The wiki definition is not correct in this case. What you say only applies when the plural form (nitrogen oxides) is used.

[Wild Cobra]

From page 144 of the report:

Abbreviations

----snip---

NO: nitrogen oxide
NO2: nitrogen dioxide
NOx: oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2)

---snip---

NOx is also commonly called "nitrogen oxides" rather than "oxides of nitrogen," but in either case is PLURAL! "Nitrogen oxides" appear in the report several times. "Nitrogen Oxide" only appears once, here in the abbreviations.

The report is specific.

You never read it. Did you?

[RandomGuy]

From page 144 of the report:


NOx is also commonly called "nitrogen oxides" rather than "oxides of nitrogen," but in either case is PLURAL! "Nitrogen oxides" appear in the report several times. "Nitrogen Oxide" only appears once, here in the abbreviations.

The report is specific.

You never read it. Did you?

La dee ing doo.

That's it?

Minor semantic errors? "OOOH, HE DIDN'T INCLUDE AN "S" ON THE END OF THE WORD "OXIDE", THEREFORE HE MUST BE LYING"

Give me a ing break.

I noticed you dodged yet another question.

To answer your question, yes I read it.

CARE TO SHARE THE LE OF THE REPORT WITH US, GENIUS?