I'll address the issue at large, since Reflex has not pm'd me in any attempt to take this offline, but continues to dance on the head of a pin regarding his/her claim that NOx isn't under debate in regard to smog formation. I will also provide links for those who actually have a sincere interest in researching the subject on their own.
Quote:
truly do invite you to reveal some actual credible science that backs up your claims regarding NOX.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/082003D.html is one such link.
Note the references cited. Note the Journal of Waste & Air Management. Now look at their parent leadership, present and past. Not that it matters, but this association is not a right wing, left wing or centrist defined organization. Again I submit that any attempt to dismiss any research based on the "labels" intolerantly assigned them is further evidence that little to no credible proof or response exists. This is a biased viewpoint intolerant of any except their preferred one, which is whatever is offered up as the flavor of the year. If they don't care for the affiliations of the source of information, such individuals dismiss the research as biased and unsound, while they practice the exact same bias in a different direction. This is the sound-bite mentality that has us in this state of disarray for sound environmental policy today.
Antoon van der Vooren, PhD PE
Manager-Air Quality
AMEC
C. V. Mathai, PhD QEP
Manager for Env. Policy
Arizona Public Service
Peter F. Hess, PE,DEE,QEP
Deputy AP Control Officer
BAAQMD
William J. Palermo
Principal
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
J. David Mobley, PE
Associate Director, Atmospheric Modeling Division
US EPA, Office of Research and Development
and many others, too numerous to list here.
Quote:
The point of view I am reffering to is the mainstream, commonly accepted point of view
What qualification does "mainstream, commonly accepted point of view" add to the contradictory evidence of the weekend effect? What point of view is commonly accepted? Again, arbitrary rules of engagement, which may or may not include all research, evidence and real world data.
http://www.altfuels.us/nafa_vs_epa.php is another link, in a court challenge to the EPA's rules. No controversy, a lawsuit challenge is more than controversy. The National Alternative Fuels association charged the EPA with omitting their own evidence which contradicts their justification for emissions policy. Some excerpts below:
Oral Arguments Re: EPA's Gasoline/Sulfur/Tier II Rule, Scheduled before the US Court of Appeals Washington, DC., February 14th, 20051
NAFA Contended:
1. EPA failed to consider compelling science that its NOx reducing regulation (intended to reduce harmful low altitude urban ozone2) would actually severely worsen the nation's air quality.3
1. First Do No Harm: EPA's New Rules Will Worsen Smog, CEI November 10, 1999, "EPA's own evidence relied upon to support its [NOx Reduction] rule shows that smog will increase in some urban centers, and decline mostly in rural areas. The real result will be increased pollution precisely where populations are concentrated." Also see
http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/tier2let.htm 2. Emissions Down, Smog Up. Say What? By Steven F. Hayward, Joel Schwartz, January 20, 2004, "[A] disproportionate number of exceedances of the ozone standard are occurring on weekends, when emissions of ozone-forming chemicals--especially NOx--are down anywhere from 10 to 40 percent…" darn the Science, Full Speed Ahead, By Joel Schwartz, 8/20/03, "Recent modeling studies have concluded that NOx reductions … would increase ozone levels in many major cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, southern California, and the San Francisco Bay area… Admitting that NOx reductions have become detrimental to ozone control would be a major embarrassment for both EPA and CARB. Both agencies have promulgated stringent regulations that will eliminate most NOx emissions from automobiles and diesel trucks during the next 20 to 30 years, as the fleet turns over to vehicles built to the tougher standards… Therein lies another irony: When EPA in 1999 promulgated a rule requiring a 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions from automobiles, the agency's own analysis concluded that the rule would increase ozone in many areas of the country."4-12
3. After the rule's promulgation, Congress voiced concern over the apparent EPA's err,13 "[T]he Agency may have failed to conduct sufficient analyses of the potential negative health impacts … including the effect of reducing NOx emissions in areas of the country that are VOC-limited, such that ozone levels respond more to reductions in VOC's than to NOx reductions."
2. EPA justifies its National Rule based solely upon the test results of a "single" vehicle, which EPA modified prior to testing.
1. See A REVIEW OF APPENDIX B OF THE U.S. EPA REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TIER 2 VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL REQUIREMENTS, 6/5/2000, Southwest Research Institute14, "It was concluded that methodology used by EPA was faulty and that the data used did not support the conclusion that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles were irreversible… Emissions data from only four vehicles were used to define the Tier 2… The four vehicles were an SUV, a pickup and two minivans…. The SUV [vehicle] emissions were weighted to represent 2/3 of the final estimate… The SUV was a Ford Expedition modified by EPA to meet Tier 2 regulations prior to testing at the EPA lab in Ann Arbor, Michigan."
.
2. EPA's forced its results to meet a predetermined conclusion. See DECLARATION OF MELVIN N. INGALLS, "[T]here is the distinct impression that the purpose of the evaluation was to produce an average reversibility for Tier 2 vehicles in the Final Rule that was as close as possible to the average reversibility presented in the NPRM. In other words, the EPA's evaluation of the new data was not objective and was made in a way to present a predetermined conclusion."
3. EPA hid its science and only presented it in the regulation "after the fact" -- after it was too late for the public to comment on it.
Quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Note how this ignores the posters own inability to substantiate their original claim, yet press on to demand even more evidence while unable to back their own claim. - Don't hold your breath waiting for proof of the original statement - all you are likely to see is more backpedalling, altered statements, and more rules of constriction regarding "credible" research, in this case, the new rule is university based research.
Now, for the 2nd time, in attempt to keep the forum free of distractions if Reflex has any more emissions, I ask that he/she not clutter any more of this thread with their unsubstantiated ramblings, but pm me instead. Otherwise, please find some other forum on which to symbolically poodle-hump bystanders ankles.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Its always easier to shoot the messenger than address the message. I do applaud Ranger1 for attempting to back his point, but I do suggest he find a mainstream source if he wishes to be taken seriously on this topic. As always however, I do respect his knowledge when it comes to the power plant in my Jeep, and I am thankful for his forum knowledge in that regard, so please do not think I have something in for him.