NH water utilities increase security in response to cyberattacks in other states 34%

By Kate Dario56%

8/3/2026, 9:30:15 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Confirmation Bias, and Status Quo Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 534 faulty-reasoning hits from 210 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.1% and a BS Rank of 34% (19,443 of 29,101 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.80% of the article peer group.

New Hampshire water utilities are preparing for cyber attacks, following a coordinated attack last week in Minnesota that impacted more than 30 municipalities. 
The attack last week targeted key water system functions that monitor and control variables like water quality, treatment and pressure. 
In the days since, at least seven states have experienced cyberattacks, though no water supplies have been altered or made unsafe to drink, according to reporting from the New York Times. 
The state Department of Environmental Services told NHPR it is working with federal authorities and local stakeholders. 
“For these recent issues that have impacted systems in other states, New Hampshire has pushed out advisories to help systems be better prepared to ward off these kinds of cyber-attacks,” said DES spokesperson Jim Martin. 
John Boisvert, who leads the state’s largest investor-owned utility Pennichuck Water, said bad actors can target certain system equipment that is connected to the internet, like pumps. 
“If those aren't controlled and protected...things like this could happen,” he said. 
Boisvert credited DES and federal officials at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for helping water systems in New Hampshire, through actions like auditing existing security protocols and bolstering certain defenses like firewalls. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.7%Kate Dario: 8.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.0%Confirmation Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.6%Kate Dario: 5.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.4%Availability Heuristic27.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 11.1%New Hampshire Public Radio: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 2.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 16.7%Kate Dario: 3.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Status Quo Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 4.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Kate Dario: 0.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 14.8%Kate Dario: 7.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 4.2%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 15.7%Kate Dario: 2.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 2.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 2.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Kate Dario: 4.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Halo Effect15.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Kate Dario: 1.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Recency Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 1.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.4%Kate Dario: 4.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.2%Appeal to Authority32.4%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.7%Kate Dario: 0.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%Kate Dario: 5.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.3%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 7.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 16.7%Kate Dario: 3.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Begging the Question16.7%This article: 11.0%Kate Dario: 3.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.7%Kate Dario: 0.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Burden of Proof5.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 1.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.9%Kate Dario: 3.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.7%Kate Dario: 2.1%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.1%Unattributed Quote16.7%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 2.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.0%Kate Dario: 1.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice11.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 1.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Dario: 2.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

210 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech103writer words
Selected voice

Jim Martin

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words33% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Martin: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.3 ptsWriter: 22.3%Jim Martin: 0.0%0.0%

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.