What will Seattle do with all that debris from Gas Works Park? ⁠36%

By Dyer Oxley⁠0%

5/20/2026, 11:14:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.4% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 399 faulty-reasoning hits from 365 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,091 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.40% of the article peer group.

Seattle's iconic Gas Works Park has recently received a facelift, producing piles of old, rusted metal ready to be hauled away. 
But all that waste is likely covered with hydrocarbons, lead paint, and other nasty remnants of its industrial life long ago. 
What will the city do with all that debris? 
The plant towers of the old Seattle Gas Light Company have become a picturesque feature of the park, which has been added to the National Register of Historic Places. 
While the towers and other structures remain, the city recently removed considerable amounts of metal features from the old structures along the north shore of Lake Union. 
Catwalks, ladders, and pipes were torn off. 
The structures at the park were part of a coal gasification plant that operated over the first half of the 1900s. 
It produced gas that could be used for needs like heating or producing electricity. 
The process left behind hydrocarbons, which can be toxic to humans. 
The paint could contain lead. 
And technically, the soil underneath the structures is contaminated, but that wasn't part of the recent demolition project. 
The soil was undisturbed. 
As such, everything removed from the site cannot simply be hauled away. 
According to a spokesperson with Seattle's Parks and Recreation Department, the removed metals are not suitable for reuse. 
They have to be disposed of, according to state and federal laws around handling contaminants. 
Any metal with undisturbed lead paint is being transferred to Seattle Iron and Metal Works, a local metal recycling plant. 
Other metals with potentially hazardous substances are being handed over to Clean Harbors. 
The parks and rec spokesperson noted that Clean Harbors is Seattle's "approved blanket vendor for disposal of dangerous and hazardous waste." 
The decision to remove catwalks, ladders, and pipes at the site was prompted by the death of a 15-year-old boy who died climbing them last summer. 
KING 5 reports that there have been three deaths and 11 serious injuries related to falls from the old structure since 2008. 
Earlier this May, crews removed any portions of the old plant that people could potentially climb and walk on. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 3.3%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 2.2%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Dyer Oxley: 3.8%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.6%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.1%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 2.4%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Dyer Oxley: 5.3%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.7%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.8%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 5.1%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.3%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Dyer Oxley: 8.8%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.8%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.6%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 2.6%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 3.6%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.8%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.2%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.8%Dyer Oxley: 4.3%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority14.8%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.2%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 7.5%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.4%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.4%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.1%Dyer Oxley: 5.6%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion7.1%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.0%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.1%Dyer Oxley: 2.5%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.1%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.0%Dyer Oxley: 2.1%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal6.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.7%Dyer Oxley: 1.5%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote16.7%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.6%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.4%Dyer Oxley: 6.3%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice33.4%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 1.5%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.1%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dyer Oxley: 2.5%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

365 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech304writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSeattle's Parks and Recreation Department • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSeattle's Parks and Recreation Department • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageKING 5 • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

KING 5

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words36% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%KING 5: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.1 ptsWriter: 40.1%KING 5: 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.