BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Overconfidence Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 12.3% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 1,153 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,171 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.6% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,260 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.20% of the article peer group.

Most people know that heat waves can be dangerous, but what they may not realize is that the heat indoors can be much worse than outdoors. 
When the power goes out and air conditioning stops, or in homes without cooling, a house starts to function like a greenhouse during a heat wave. 
Heat enters through windows and walls and has nowhere to go. 
Air stagnates. 
Within hours, indoor temperatures can climb well above what the thermometer shows outside, especially on upper floors and in rooms with south-facing windows. 
Over longer periods, especially if temperatures don’t cool off overnight, conditions can become lethal. 
Most heat-related deaths occur indoors. 
When a heat dome sent temperatures soaring in the Pacific Northwest in 2021, 98% of the more than 600 deaths in British Columbia happened inside homes. 
Washington and Oregon also saw high numbers of deaths in homes that lacked air conditioning. 
In Europe, where only 1 in 10 households have air conditioning, heat waves killed an estimated 60,000 people in 2022 and 47,000 in 2023, largely inside buildings never designed for these temperatures. 
People of all ages are at risk in heat waves like these. 
I spent eight years at the University of Texas at Austin studying how buildings respond to extreme heat. 
In a recent study, my team assessed the heat risk in every single-family home in Austin. 
We found that even younger, healthy adults face far more risk than they realize. 
Houston homes are built much like those in Austin, but with higher humidity, dangerous indoor conditions are reached at lower temperatures. 
How hot is too hot for a human body? 
Your body maintains a core temperature of about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. 
To cool down, it pushes blood to the skin and sweats. 
But when air temperature is high, that convective cooling weakens. 
When humidity is also high, sweat cannot evaporate. 
If the body has no way to release heat, core temperature rises. 
If the core temperature increases past about 104 degrees, the body’s thermoregulation starts to fail. 
Past 109 degrees, death becomes likely. 
What makes indoor heat especially dangerous is that it does not let up at night in homes that lack air conditioning. 
Outdoor temperatures typically drop after sunset, and someone outside can get a few hours of recovery. 
But a poorly insulated home that has been absorbing heat all day releases that heat slowly, keeping indoor temperatures elevated through the night. 
A person inside the home never gets a break. 
After two or three nights of this, even healthy people start to be at serious risk for heat-related illnesses. 
Why homes heat up more than people expect 
People tend to underestimate indoor heat for a few reasons. 
One is that the thermostat typically sits on one wall in one room. 
It does not tell what the temperature is in an upstairs bedroom or near a sun-facing window. 
In older, underinsulated homes, the actual felt temperature can exceed 90 degrees even when a thermostat reads 75. 
The hot walls, ceilings and windows can radiate heat directly onto your body. 
Another reason is that people assume all homes respond to heat the same way. 
However, a newer home with double-pane windows and good insulation acts like a thermos, keeping heat out for a longer time. 
An older home with single-pane windows and cracks in the walls heats up fast. 
Two houses on the same street, exposed to the same outdoor conditions, can have completely different temperatures inside. 
And in a blackout, where neither home has cooling, those differences can become a matter of life and death. 
What we found in Austin 
Our study combined two datasets. 
From Austin’s tax appraisal records, we pulled basic property information, such as the year the home was built, the size and the number of stories for each of the city’s 213,000 single-family homes. 
We then matched each home to the most similar energy simulation models in a U.S. 
Department of Energy database that contains thousands of detailed, physics-based building energy models representing the U.S. residential building stock. 
Using those models, we simulated each building’s indoor temperatures over time during a three-day heat wave and power outage with outdoor temperatures above 110 degrees F. 
We found that 85% of homes got hot enough to pose a significant risk of death for an elderly occupant. 
But what surprised us was the risk to younger people. 
Under today’s climate conditions in Austin, about 15% of homes already have the potential to get hot enough without air conditioning to pose serious heat risks to healthy adults. 
Under future warming scenarios, that number jumps to as high as 65% if average summer highs reach 104 degrees. 
Further, climate projections for Austin show that heat waves will double in frequency by the end of the century. 
We found three types of buildings and accompanying risks: 
Resilient homes, which are newer and well insulated, tended to have temperature and humidity conditions that would be survivable for an elderly occupant throughout the simulated heat wave with blackout. 
Critical-risk buildings, which are mostly older homes, became dangerous almost immediately. 
And then there was the middle group  homes where temperatures rose slowly during the simulated blackout, day by day, possibly giving occupants a false sense of security until it was too late. 
Texas has already seen conditions like our case study’s  a heat wave paired with a power outage. 
In 2024, a derecho knocked out power for nearly 900,000 Houston households while the heat index climbed to 100 degrees F. 
Seven weeks later, Hurricane Beryl cut power to 2.6 million homes, leaving them without power for over three days, with temperatures over 90. 
What you can do to stay safe 
If you can’t get cooling at home, there are steps you can take that can help. 
Move to the lowest floor of your home, where it will be coolest. 
Close the blinds and curtains on sun-facing windows. 
Drink water constantly to stay hydrated, which is essential for regulating body temperature. 
If you’re facing a blackout, be sure to also check on elderly neighbors, especially those living alone. 
You can also try to find a public cooling center; many cities now open them during heat emergencies. 
Longer term, upgrades such as reflective window film, attic insulation and lighter-colored roofing can reduce how much a home heats up. 
After the 2021 heat dome, British Columbia’s coroner recommended updating building codes to address heat. 
Our own findings point in the same direction: We propose that new homes should be required by building codes to maintain conditions in which at least light physical activity remains possible for all occupants for at least 72 hours during a power outage. 
As summers get hotter with climate change and blackouts become more frequent, the risks of people suffering heat illnesses will only continue to rise. 
Zoltan Nagy is a professor of Building Services at Eindhoven University of Technology. 
A slightly different version of this piece originally appeared in The Conversation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Zoltan Nagy: 1.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.1%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Zoltan Nagy: 4.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Zoltan Nagy: 3.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias8.5%This article: 5.9%Zoltan Nagy: 4.0%Houston Chronicle: 4.4%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 1.4%Zoltan Nagy: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Loss Aversion1.4%This article: 3.7%Zoltan Nagy: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Zoltan Nagy: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Optimism Bias1.6%This article: 5.0%Zoltan Nagy: 2.3%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 7.8%Zoltan Nagy: 5.1%Houston Chronicle: 5.2%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Zoltan Nagy: 1.3%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.4%Zoltan Nagy: 0.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.4%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Zoltan Nagy: 5.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.1%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 1.5%Zoltan Nagy: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%False Dilemma1.5%This article: 6.9%Zoltan Nagy: 3.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%Zoltan Nagy: 5.3%Houston Chronicle: 3.4%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Zoltan Nagy: 0.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 10.5%Zoltan Nagy: 3.5%Houston Chronicle: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.5%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.5%Zoltan Nagy: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 2.0%Anecdotal1.5%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Zoltan Nagy: 1.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 4.3%Zoltan Nagy: 7.7%Houston Chronicle: 1.3%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1171 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.1%attributed speech1,158writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageZoltan Nagy • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Zoltan Nagy

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words100% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Indoctrination-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Zoltan Nagy: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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