A Massive Coal Mine Fire Killed over 1,000 Workers. Weeks Later, 13 Men Emerged Alive. 20%

By Tim Newcomb20%

7/15/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 219 hits. Analysis detected 988 faulty-reasoning hits from 591 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,615 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

In March 1906, something was wrong beneath the hills of Pas-de-Calais in northern France. 
Workers descending into the Courrières coal mine reported a strange, acrid smell seeping through the tunnels—toxic gas, leaking through cracks in the rock. 
But the mine was vast, a labyrinth of shafts connecting at least four different towns, capable of hosting over 2,000 men and boys digging for coal at any one time. 
And so operations continued. 
Then came the fire. 
Deep in the Cecil Pit, roughly 900 feet below ground, coal dust ignited around 3 p.m. on March 9, 1906. 
It’s never been certain how it started—the leading theories include the mishandling of explosives used nearby or a miner’s naked-flame lamp sparking the accident—but miners couldn’t extinguish it. 
They attempted to seal the pit, hoping to suffocate the oxygen-hungry flames. 
It wasn’t enough. 
About 15 hours later, on the morning of March 10, the flammable gas that had been seeping through the walls mingled with the fire, and the mine erupted. 
The explosion was powerful enough to kill individuals on the surface and damage buildings above ground as debris shot out of the tunnel openings. 
Roughly 500 miners escaped the shafts in the immediate aftermath, many of whom were severely burned and injured from both the fires and the toxic air. 
But rescue attempts were perilous. 
All 40 men in one rescue party died when a shaft completely collapsed. 
The owners of the mine ordered shafts sealed shut to limit the growth of the raging fires, although some believed at the time this was done was to save precious money-making coal from burning. 
The casualty list grew and officially reached 1,099, with hundreds more seriously injured. 
It was the most devastating mining disaster in European history at the time. 
A mortuary was erected near the mine, and workers spent weeks recovering and trying to identify the dead. 
Then, nearly three weeks after the explosion, recovery crews received quite the surprise. 
They stumbled upon 13 miners “in a terribly emaciated condition,” in the words of a news report published at the time by the Northern Times of Carnarvon, Australia. 
The miners had survived for three weeks on oats, the bark of the mine’s timbers, and decomposing horse flesh. 
Once back above ground, they had to be slowly nursed back to health because their bodies were ravaged by the lack of food and toxic air. 
A Paris-based newspaper blamed the owners of the mine for many of the deaths, saying they were guilty of “negligence in not exploring the galleries where the 13 men were rescued.” 
Experts estimated that 150 entombed miners had lived for several days after the catastrophe. 
On April 1, crews discovered a live horse in a pit and determined that several miners had died just a day prior—agonizingly close to rescue. 
But the final unexpected marvel occurred on April 4. 
About 1,000 feet from the surface, crews discovered a lone miner alive and in surprisingly good health. 
The man, who was identified as Auguste Berthou in media reports, had survived for nearly a month in total darkness, living off coffee, brandy, water, and bread found on the bodies of his deceased coworkers. 
He staved off the cold by pulling clothing from the dead all around him. 
At his lowest, he had contemplated suicide with an axe, but couldn't locate one. 
Instead, he was found breathing. 
Twenty-six days after the earth had swallowed him, Berthou walked back into the light. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.0%Tim Newcomb: 5.7%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Tim Newcomb: 3.1%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Tim Newcomb: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.7%Tim Newcomb: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Tim Newcomb: 2.6%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 5.6%Tim Newcomb: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 10.2%Tim Newcomb: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Tim Newcomb: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Tim Newcomb: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Tim Newcomb: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.4%Tim Newcomb: 5.7%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority12.4%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.6%Tim Newcomb: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion4.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Tim Newcomb: 3.1%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.9%Tim Newcomb: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal13.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Tim Newcomb: 2.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.9%Tim Newcomb: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote15.9%This article: 4.7%Tim Newcomb: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 37.1%Tim Newcomb: 5.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice37.1%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

591 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.7%attributed speech563writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNorthern Times of Carnarvon, Australia • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Northern Times of Carnarvon, Australia: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+88.3 ptsWriter: 11.7%Northern Times of Carnarvon, Australia: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.9 ptsWriter: 38.9%Northern Times of Carnarvon, Australia: 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.