Clicking on the correction shows that correction is just on a single figure, so that's not supporting your argument:

> A corrected version of Figure 3 is below, where in Panel A r2 = 0.59 is changed to r2 = 0.58.

Yeah, I generally follow the idea that if a paper has one revealed error, it probably has a lot more errors that they didn't provide enough evidence to catch, so I didn't read what the correction was. This is a pretty dumb error to get through the writing process.

Also, if you want to see some well-cited posts on the tenuous evidence of health effects of NOx, other posts in this comments section have plenty of sources. Even the link to asthma is pretty tenuous, apparently.

On a quick search, NO may not be particularly toxic at the concentrations in question. (And your body produces it!). NO seems like it’s mostly a problem outdoors because of other stuff it reacts with.

But NO2 is certainly toxic, and it looks like stoves product about 1/4 as much NO2 as total NOx.

(I also recall reading that stoves, with no pot or pan on them, produce minimal CO, but that gas ovens produce lots of CO. Also, residential gas ovens are IMO really quite bad at cooking.)

One extra thing about both NO and NO2 that the narrative on this really discounts (but you touched on) is that they are both fairly reactive, so they tend not to linger in the air. This makes them damaging to whatever environment the end up in, but a lot less likely to build up to toxic levels than stable molecules like CO and CO2. The dose makes the poison, and these ones are hard to get in high dosages.

And yeah, the cheap residential gas ovens really suck, and likely put out a lot more of the bad stuff (both CH4 and CO, but also probably the NOx compounds too) than stovetops. Mixed fuel is now the hot thing in ranges: gas burners and electric ovens.