Futurism88%

Data Center Emits Constant Screeching Noise Directly Into Man’s House 65%

By Frank Landymore67%

7/5/2026, 4:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 185 hits. Analysis detected 1,503 faulty-reasoning hits from 558 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.5% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,665 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

Set foot in Dowagiac, a sleepy town in Southwest Michigan, and you’ll immediately notice two things that stand out in the otherwise rustic surroundings: a massive 30 megawatt data center  and the constant ear piercing noise it emits. 
No one knows this better than the Marjorie and Billy Finn, a married couple who live right in front of the sprawling complex. 
The constant hum is like a jet engine, Billy Finn told MLive. 
Using his own decibel meter in a video taken by the newspaper, he measures the noise levels from his porch, which hover around 60 decibels. 
That’s roughly the equivalent of a noisy dishwasher, except that sound is a constant presence everywhere outside. 
"It's like we're living in a prison in our own yard, in our own house," Marjorie Finn told the outlet, adding that she can even hear the hum while she tries to sleep at night. 
Two other residents are suing the data center, Hyperscale Data, saying that their homes are being "physically invaded" by the "excessive noise" from its facility, MLive reported. 
(The Finns were approached to join the lawsuit but declined.) 
It doesn't matter if you close the windows or turn up the TV  you'll hear its constant screeching anyway, the suit alleges. 
It also accuses Hyperscale Data of failing to implement adequate soundproofing measures, like the concrete walls that surround highways in residential areas. 
According to Billy Finn, the noise is actually getting louder. 
He's been tracking the decibel levels on Louise Avenue since 2022, when Hyperscale Data began operating. 
Back then, the sound level was around 52 decibels. 
Today, they're typically around 61 decibels, and sometimes go as high as 78 decibels, he told the paper. 
Inside his house, it goes down to 39 decibels, which is about the level of a quiet office or library, according to the American Academy of Audiology. 
But it jumps to 62 decibels when he opens the door, sounding a bit like a passenger jet taxiing on the runway in the distance. 
"It's [like] a constant major city street where you have a lot of vehicle traffic," Billy Finn said. 
Noise pollution isn't an uncommon complaint about data centers. 
The Nashville Zoo in Tennessee warned that the construction of a nearby data center could harm the animals living in captivity. 
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute claims that they emit at ultra-low frequencies that can possibly induce a range of symptoms over time such as anxiety, nausea, though the science on this is iffy. 
Sixty-two decibels won't damage the ears, but over time it can spike your stress levels and has even been linked with cardiac problems, according to Kim Kragt, lead audiologist for Bronson Hospital. 
"Even at a lower level, if it wasn't doing damage to your ears, it is damaging your overall health and well-being," Kragt told the newspaper, adding that because the data center's hum is "unnatural," it might be harder to adjust to. 
The Finns feel trapped. 
They say fewer friends and family visit because of the noise, and they're worried that it's also driven down the value of their home. 
"They've stolen something from us," Marjorie said. 
"It feels like an immense loss." 
More on data centers: Massive Data Center Cooks Nearby Residents Alive Amidst Deadly Heatwave 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 4.5%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 9.0%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic9.0%This article: 10.8%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 1.8%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 5.6%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 11.3%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 33.2%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias33.2%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 7.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.7%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority16.7%This article: 4.1%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 2.5%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring2.5%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.9%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion26.9%This article: 8.6%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question8.6%This article: 14.7%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 11.3%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature11.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.9%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal17.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote4.5%This article: 5.9%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 26.3%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice26.3%This article: 6.3%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination6.3%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

558 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers46%attributed speech299writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageBilly Finn • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Finn • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBilly Finn • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBilly Finn • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBilly Finn • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBilly Finn • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBilly Finn • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNashville Zoo • 21 words • 0.0% coverageEnvironmental and Energy Study Institute • 34 words • 100.0% coverageKim Kragt • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKim Kragt • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Finn • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Finn • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kim Kragt

100%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words28% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.8 ptsWriter: 37.8%Kim Kragt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Kim Kragt: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Kim Kragt: 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.