STLPR0%

St. Louis among worst cities for ozone pollution, report finds 43%

By Sarah Fentem57%

5/1/2026, 2:33:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 157 hits. Analysis detected 668 faulty-reasoning hits from 413 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,668 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

The St. 
Louis metropolitan area is among the 25 cities ranked worst for ozone air pollution, according to the latest “State of the Air” report released by the health advocacy group the American Lung Association. 
Ozone, a gas that occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, is considered a pollutant at ground level. 
According to the report, the metropolitan area experienced an average of 10 high-ozone days each year between 2022 and 2024. 
Ground-level ozone  the main component of smog  is created when pollution from cars, power plants and other sources interacts with the sun, which is why it’s more common during hot months. 
The number of high-ozone days in the U.S. has significantly decreased in the past 30 years, according to the report’s authors. 
High-ozone days can be particularly harmful for children, outdoor workers and people with asthma, said Laura Turner, advocacy director for Missouri at the American Lung Association. 
She has asthma and said she can feel when the region is experiencing high-ozone days when she breathes: 
"It's dangerous to breathe in. 
We compare it to a sunburn for your lungs. 
And ozone really impacts asthma, and you can see those really acute spikes in ozone translating to more asthma attacks, more health emergencies." 
Greater St. 
Louis also ranked 31 for worst particle pollution out of the more than 200 cities studied. 
Particle pollution comes from sources such as coal plants, factories, vehicle exhaust and wildfire smoke. 
The ranking is actually an improvement from earlier years, when the region was ranked in the top 25 for the measure. 
The 2026 "State of the Air" report emphasized air pollution’s effects on young people. 
It pointed out that more than 40% of the nation’s children live in an area with unhealthy levels of polluted air. 
The report gave failing grades for ozone pollution to the city of St. 
Louis as well as St. 
Louis, Jefferson and St. 
Charles counties in Missouri and Jersey, Macoupin Madison and St. 
Clair counties in Illinois. 
Climate change is causing more high-ozone days across the country, according to the report. 
Droughts, wildfires and rising temperatures all contribute to dirtier air. 
“This report reflects both how far the St. 
Louis region has come and how much work still lies ahead,” said Susannah Fuchs, director of healthy air solutions at the organization’s Missouri chapter, in a news release. 
“Recent environmental and climate-related pressures are putting those gains at risk.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Sarah Fentem: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic17.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Sarah Fentem: 6.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 2.7%Sarah Fentem: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion2.7%This article: 5.1%Sarah Fentem: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Sarah Fentem: 4.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias5.1%This article: 14.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.0%This article: 38.0%Sarah Fentem: 6.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias38.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.5%Sarah Fentem: 4.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority16.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.1%Sarah Fentem: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.3%Sarah Fentem: 6.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion15.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.4%Sarah Fentem: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.4%Sarah Fentem: 3.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Sarah Fentem: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground5.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.9%Sarah Fentem: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.9%This article: 1.2%Sarah Fentem: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 2.2%Sarah Fentem: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Fentem: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

413 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech285writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Turner • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Turner • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Turner • 5 words • 100.0% coverageLaura Turner • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Turner • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSusannah Fuchs • 8 words • 100.0% coverageSusannah Fuchs • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSusannah Fuchs • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Laura Turner

100%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words63% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection+6.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Laura Turner: 6.2%6.2%Biased Writer Voice-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Laura Turner: 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.