KUER0%

Utahns are feeling the anxiety and stress of how close wildfires are this year 26%

By Hugo Rikard-Bell0%

6/25/2026, 6:17:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,055 faulty-reasoning hits from 752 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.7% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,322 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.60% of the article peer group.

It was a routine Saturday morning in the Avenues neighborhood of Salt Lake City when Paisley Rekdal took her dogs for a walk. 
She’d heard whispers of a fire on social media and knew the season was expected to be especially dangerous. 
But the idea that a wildfire could upend her own life still felt far away. 
“My first impulse was actually to take a picture of it,” she said. 
Rekdal was in the process of moving and wasn’t aware of how bad the fire got until later, when she saw billowing smoke as she was carrying boxes out to her car. 
“I started, like I said, seeing neighbors come out and you know, people I hadn't ever talked to, and we were standing in the street, and we're talking to each other, and trying to make sense of it together.” 
The Bonneville Fire started June 20, directly to the east of the University of Utah, where it raced up the hills and burned 566 acres. 
Since it started, Rekdal said she found it difficult to sleep and breathe and has felt a constant sense of stress. 
“You worry that you're overreacting, and then you worry that you're underreacting,” she said. 
“So, it's hard to figure out what to do, because we're just in this incredibly new normal, where nothing feels normal, and any response that you would normally have now has to be questioned.” 
The psychological toll of wildfires is an emerging area of research. 
And considering devastating fires like those in Maui in 2023 and the Palisades in 2025, researchers like Amanda Bakian are working to understand the long-term impacts. 
Bakian, a psychiatric researcher for the Huntsman Mental Health Institute, said the fire’s damage goes beyond the flames themselves. 
Smoke and particles released into the air can have major health effects, “which can also impact your mind, because that air pollution either directly affects your lungs, which causes trickle-down effects that travel to your brain, or you actually inhale those air plumes directly into your brain, and can cause some damage.” 
In her first study in Salt Lake County, she looked at wintertime inversions and summer wildfires, and found a relationship between short-term exposure to fine particle matter and a higher? 
risk of suicide. 
She also noted people’s innate fear when large fires are close, which compounds the effects of the poor air quality. 
“We also know that that type of acute stress can also have negative impacts on your mental health, so there are probably multiple things happening there, and that they can interact together, and they can worsen one of those exposures,” she said. 
Utahns across the state are seeing or feeling the effects of wildfire. 
The Iron Fire, in Juab County, has burned more than 37,000 acres and forced evacuations in Eureka; residents are only now being allowed to return home. 
The Cottonwood Fire in southern Utah has grown to over 61,000 acres and is uncontained. 
The Bonneville Fire is now 95% contained, but still burning in spots almost a week later. 
The Bonneville Shoreline, Red Butte Canyon and Dry Gulch trails are still closed. 
Nearby residents can see the blackened hillsides and detect smoke from time to time. 
For Rekdal, the only way to calm her nerves was to prepare to leave on the spot if told to. 
“So I found myself running around, making sure I knew where my documents were, getting, you know, medications together, getting everything ready to go, just in case I had to,” she said. 
She also made electronic copies of her important documents, explaining that feeling prepared helped her cope with her stress. 
This mirrored Bakian’s advice, who said being prepared is key to reducing stress. 
Her primary research, though, is on the physical impacts of air pollutants on mental health, and she has other advice on how to combat that  like wearing a mask. 
“So, the same masks that we were wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, they actually do a pretty good job at filtering these air pollutants, right?” 
she said. 
Rekdal’s experience has taught her the importance of preparedness regardless of how unlikely you think fire is to impact your home. 
“When you see the Palisade fires, you see the other kinds of fires that destroy whole communities. 
You think this is really possible. 
It's possible anywhere, and so then you have to start thinking, ‘Well, am I prepared to leave very quickly?’” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.1%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.5%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 1.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.9%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 7.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 7.2%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 5.2%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 4.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.4%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 6.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 5.4%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.2%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.6%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 4.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.8%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma4.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 6.7%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.1%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.2%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division1.7%This article: 18.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.2%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal18.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.9%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.3%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 1.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.6%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 11.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination11.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

752 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech418writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 21 words • 100.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Bakian • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Bakian • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Bakian • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageAmanda Bakian • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 17 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePaisley Rekdal • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paisley Rekdal

100%flagged-word coverage
195 attributed words58% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+20.0 ptsWriter: 7.2%Paisley Rekdal: 27.2%27.2%Unattributed Quote+10.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paisley Rekdal: 10.8%10.8%Quote-first Misdirection+6.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paisley Rekdal: 6.7%6.7%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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