Cooling system at chemical tanks likely failed, forcing mass O.C. evacuations, fire officials say 20%

By Hannah Fry49%

5/26/2026, 9:03:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Overconfidence Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 28.3% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,464 faulty-reasoning hits from 572 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.6% and a BS Rank of 20% (16,959 of 21,173 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.10% of the article peer group.

The crisis at a Garden Grove aerospace firm that required the evacuation of 50,000 people was probably caused by the failure of a cooling system designed to regulate the temperature of chemical tanks, interim Orange County Fire Authority Chief TJ McGovern told The Times on Tuesday. 
This may have led to a buildup of heat in a pressurized tank filled with 7,000 gallons of a chemical called methyl methacrylate, a highly flammable liquid monomer used to manufacture plastics. 
“We don’t know why, but it stopped cooling,” McGovern said. 
“So that’s what started this event, to where the product heated up ... and that’s how this whole response started. 
We’re just now being able to get to the tanks, so there’s definitely more to come of what caused it.” 
Officials evacuated an estimated 50,000 people on Friday after determining one of the three tanks at the aerospace company was in danger of a massive blast called a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, which would have caused widespread damage. 
Further evaluations over the Memorial Day weekend found the tank had a crack that had reduced pressure, eliminating the possibility of a catastrophic blast. 
“Yesterday we really turned a corner,” McGovern said. 
The confirmation that the tank was no longer pressurized enabled members of a team  made up of experts from the Fire Authority, Los Angeles and Long Beach fire departments, Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County fire departments, and the California Office of Emergency Services  to get closer to the tank to peel back the external wall and insulation, McGovern said. 
This enabled them to focus their unstaffed hose lines on the internal tank to cool the chemical more effectively, dropping the temperature to around 92 degrees. 
Although authorities reduced the size of the evacuation zone on Monday, officials stressed that the danger was not over in the immediate area around the Garden Grove aerospace facility. 
About 16,000 people remained under mandatory evacuation orders in the blocks immediately around the property. 
But McGovern said at a Tuesday afternoon community meeting that evacuation zones could soon shrink further. 
Officials were assessing whether the tank’s temperature had stabilized. 
If it has and there’s no fire risk, he said, “our evacuation zones are going to shrink.” 
Officials have said that the crisis did not result in the release of chemicals that could be harmful. 
“I want to reassure everyone who is outside of the new evacuation zone that, when you go home, you can feel safe,” said Orange County Health Officer Dr. 
Regina Chinsio-Kwong. 
“There was no contamination, there were no fumes, there were no vapors that came from this incident. 
There was no leak.” 
On Tuesday, McGovern said officials had started shutting down one of the two water supplies that were cooling the tank and assessing how it responded. 
“We’re looking for any fluctuations. 
What we do not want is the internal temperature to increase because we’re shutting down the water. 
We would really like it to decrease. ... 
We’re looking at the stability of the internal temperature,” he said. 
If the temperature remained constant, officials were set to consider shutting down the secondary water supply. 
After that, if the temperature didn’t fluctuate, it would “tell us that the fire problem, or the small explosion, has been mitigated,” he said. 
Times staff writer Clara Harter contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%Hannah Fry: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 10.0%Hannah Fry: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias10.0%This article: 6.8%Hannah Fry: 5.8%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.2%Hannah Fry: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.2%This article: 20.3%Hannah Fry: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias20.3%This article: 15.4%Hannah Fry: 6.1%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 3.0%Hannah Fry: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion3.0%This article: 11.0%Hannah Fry: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Hannah Fry: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Hannah Fry: 9.2%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Hannah Fry: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect11.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Hannah Fry: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.3%Hannah Fry: 6.2%Daily Pilot: 5.0%Appeal to Authority28.3%This article: 9.6%Hannah Fry: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma9.6%This article: 3.0%Hannah Fry: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 4.2%Hannah Fry: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning4.2%This article: 6.8%Hannah Fry: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%Hannah Fry: 5.3%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.9%Hannah Fry: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.7%Hannah Fry: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof11.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Hannah Fry: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.4%Hannah Fry: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground1.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Hannah Fry: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 3.5%Hannah Fry: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 2.4%Hannah Fry: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 4.9%Hannah Fry: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Fry: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

572 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers60%attributed speech231writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 10 words • 100.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 63 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong • 28 words • 100.0% coverageDr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 25 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTJ McGovern • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
96%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words15% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+54.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong: 54.9%54.9%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Dr. Regina Chinsio-Kwong: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.