KUOW73%

Confirmed death toll climbs to 8 in Longview paper mill disaster 13%

By Courtney Sherwood (OPB)0%

5/28/2026, 4:52:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 1,414 faulty-reasoning hits from 900 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.9% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,036 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

Crews recovered six bodies from a Longview paper mill Thursday as they continued the response to a massive chemical tank rupture earlier this week. 
That brings the confirmed death toll from the Tuesday disaster at the Nippon Dynawave Packaging Company to eight, including two people who were declared dead at local hospitals. 
Three more people remain unaccounted, and are presumed dead, in what Longview Fire Department Chief Brad Hannig called “an active and hazardous environment.” 
The fatal release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of a highly caustic liquid, which killed and injured workers and spilled into local waterways, is Washington state’s deadliest workplace tragedy in 96 years. 
Here’s some of what we know about the disaster and ongoing recovery efforts. 
The death toll is likely to climb 
Eight people have been declared dead as a result of the chemical release at the Nippon Dynawave. 
But another three people who were on site at the time are unaccounted for. 
Firefighters have indicated they do not expect to find any survivors. 
Friends and family have confirmed that Gilbert Bernal, 52, was among those killed. 
Bernal worked at Nippon Dynawave as an instrument technician after taking night classes while parenting and working full time, his daughter Geo Bernal told OPB. 
“He literally did everything for us,” she said. 
“It’s just really, actually, heartbreaking that the career that he worked so hard, is what took him out.” 
OPB is only naming those injured or killed following the chemical release after confirming their identities with officials or loved ones. 
Recovery crews are navigating a challenging scene 
The tank rupture happened during a shift change, so more people were on site than usual and they were moving between different spaces. 
Although there are some surveillance cameras at the paper mill, the camera network does not make it clear where all the missing staff were at the time of the chemical release. 
The damaged chemical tank is unstable and still leaking. 
It’s also at the heart of a complex industrial site criss-crossed by pipelines, power lines and chemicals. 
That’s made it hard to use aerial drones to assess the site and seek out missing people, Washington state Sen. 
Jeff Wilson, a Longview resident, told OPB’s “Think Out Loud.” 
As people involved in the recovery effort prioritize their own safety, the response has been slowed. 
The danger appears contained  mostly 
Longview Fire Department staff said the chemical release was contained to the industrial site where it took place, and residents of surrounding areas were not at risk. 
The Washington Department of Ecology says Longview’s air quality and drinking water are not affected. 
But tens of thousands of gallons of the caustic chemical known as white liquor, which is used to break wood chips into pulp to make paper, escaped. 
Some reached a storm drain system that flows to the Columbia River. 
State officials say people should stay away from dikes and ditches for now. 
They are still monitoring and conducting tests, and a local diking district is pumping potentially contaminated water away from rivers and the drinking water system. 
This was Washington’s deadliest workplace accident in a century 
The death toll may not be final for quite some time, but the tragedy in Longview is more severe than any since the days of coal mine disasters. 
Washington state’s last mining disaster was in 1930, when 17 people died. 
Since then, workplace disasters have been infrequent and generally small. 
Before Tuesday, the state’s most recent large-scale workplace fatality event was in 2010, when seven people died at a refinery explosion in Anacortes. 
In Longview, a close-knit community where many firefighters and other first responders have direct ties to the Nippon mill, the potential scale of Tuesday’s chemical release has shaken many people involved in the response. 
“It continues to be incredibly difficult for us,” Matt Amos, Longview Fire battalion chief, said. 
“We appreciate the professionalism of the responders working this operation, and the patience and support everyone has shown. 
The paper mill is shut down for now 
Operations at the mill are largely paused while recovery efforts move forward. 
In the meantime, employees who are not able to work as a result of the disaster response are still being paid as of Thursday, said Brian Wood, support services director for Nippon Dynawave. 
Longview has been a timber and paper mill town since its founding. 
Timber giant Weyerhaeuser arrived in the city in 1925, one year after it was officially incorporated, according to a company history. 
The company built what was then the world’s largest lumber mill there, and in 1931 opened a neighboring mill that made pulp to turn into paper. 
Japanese company Nippon bought Weyerhaeuser’s Longview pulp and paper mill in 2016 for $285 million, and the site continues to be a major employer in the region. 
About 115,000 people live in the greater Longview-Kelso area, with about 1,000 people working at the Nippon Dynawave mill. 
Local officials have raised concerns about whether Tuesday’s disaster could imperil a major employment hub. 
“Folks here have watched mill after mill close across this state, always wondering if their mill is next,” U.S. 
Rep. 
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who represents Longview, said Wednesday. 
The congresswoman called for a plan to address failures “so we can have safe jobs, come home to our families at night, and rebuild public trust.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.6%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 4.2%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.8%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 10.9%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 2.7%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 9.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 2.3%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.3%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.1%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.2%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 8.9%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 2.7%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 18.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 6.4%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 5.4%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.4%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.9%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.2%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.8%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.9%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 4.0%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority15.9%This article: 1.6%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.4%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma1.6%This article: 1.7%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope1.7%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 2.3%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 6.6%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion8.3%This article: 2.9%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.7%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 6.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 2.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.6%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division1.3%This article: 4.4%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.1%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.9%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.2%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.9%This article: 2.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.1%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 4.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.1%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 4.3%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 1.1%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtney Sherwood (OPB): 0.0%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

900 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers27%attributed speech653writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Hannig • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageGeo Bernal • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGeo Bernal • 8 words • 100.0% coverageGeo Bernal • 18 words • 0.0% coverageOPB • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJeff Wilson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLongview Fire Department • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWashington Department of Ecology • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Amos • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Amos • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Wood • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageMarie Gluesenkamp Perez • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMarie Gluesenkamp Perez • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brad Hannig

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words9.3% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Brad Hannig: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Brad Hannig: 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.