BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 13.6% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 904 faulty-reasoning hits from 969 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.4% and a BS Rank of 24% (20,446 of 26,869 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.10% of the article peer group.

MIAMI  When hurricanes come ashore in Miami, their waves take big bites out of the coastline, chewing up sand and waterfront properties alike. 
A chunk of concrete sunk offshore in Miami Beach could change that. 
The University of Miami recently installed the second phase of its hybrid reef project  an engineered piece of concrete seeded with hearty corals designed to withstand the steaming, shallow seas of South Florida  after years of research, some funded by the U.S. military. 
The researchers say they already have promising results from Phase 1, placed in 2023 offshore of Miami Beach, and they have big hopes for what’s next. 
In the most recent phase, scientists dropped three “SEAHIVE” structures into the water near 81st Street in Miami Beach. 
Each structure looks like a bunch of rigatoni noodles stuck together with holes poked into them, and they’re specially designed to help break down waves by allowing a calculated amount of water to flow in and out. 
Lab results showed these structures could cut the energy from incoming waves by up to 98 percent, said Landolf Rhode-Barbarigos, an associate professor at the University of Miami College of Engineering who spearheaded the invention of SEAHIVE in 2018. 
That’s key when it comes to protecting coastal South Florida from 20-foot waves from a future storm. 
“We showed that this was feasible. 
To do this on a large scale, you need a large installation,” he said. 
At 7 meters long each, the recently placed structures aren’t substantial enough to actually break a big wave to protect the coast. 
And they’re too far away, placed 750 meters from the sand. 
At that size and distance, they’re more like minor speed bumps. 
That’s why the next phase will be much longer (a 100-meter-long deployment) and much, much closer  inside the swim zone in Miami Beach, around 200 meters from the shore. 
The project already is being permitted and planned, said Andrew Baker, a professor in the Department of Marine Biology and Ecology and director of the Coral Reef Futures Lab at the Rosenstiel School. 
“We want these structures to be as close to shore as we can reasonably get them and close to the water’s surface as we can go, because that’s what’s going to really break the waves,” he said. 
Coral cover 
South Florida’s nearshore area is no stranger to sunken things covered in marine life, like Neptune Memorial Reef, the Reefline or any number of scuttled boats or artificial reefs. 
What sets the University of Miami project apart, besides the SEAHIVE structure, is the corals on top of it. 
Those other structures are covered in soft, bendy corals, sponges, marine plants and algae. 
They’re pretty for snorkelers and divers and form great habitats for fish and marine life, but they don’t exactly break down wave energy. 
SEAHIVE uses hard corals, the kind that are proven to slow down waves. 
Lab testing shows the SEAHIVE structures are even more effective at breaking waves when corals are growing on the exterior, and as the corals grow, the structure will provide even more protection. 
Baker and his team placed a bevy of hard corals on the structure, including corals implanted with a more heat-resistant algal symbiote (the tiny critters that live inside the coral animal and provide it shade and food). 
They also planted something unusual  a hybrid between the two most endangered species in the wild, Elkhorn and Staghorn corals. 
Both species are considered “functionally extinct” in the region due primarily to climate change-induced marine heat waves. 
These hybrid corals, also called fused acropora, combine the best features of their parents. 
They grow fast like Staghorns and thick and robust like Elkhorns, Baker said. 
And because they’re not technically either of their federally endangered parents, they fall through the crack when it comes to the extensive permitting needed to plant new ones on a reef. 
The state of Florida requires permits to plant corals if they’re endangered, part of the state’s responsibility to protect the heavily endangered species. 
“Only two or three different individuals (fused acropora) in Florida have been found naturally on the reef,” Baker said. 
So his team grew 1,000 of them using some of the military funding for this project. 
For both phases of this project, Baker’s team wanted to ensure the baby corals they planted stay put, so they placed a net over the area and released the coral larvae inside, where they were forced to make a home on the structures. 
It worked. 
“The rates of survival of these larvae were greater than what we see on a natural reef,” he said. 
“It matches what we see for lab grown that we plant.” 
That’s good news, because South Florida needs reefs for protection  and quickly. 
The region is at risk of stronger, wetter storms due to climate change, the same force that’s cranking the thermostat on the marine environment and cooking the weaker corals. 
“Insta-reefs” like these, Baker said, can help plug some of the holes in Miami’s coastal armor faster. 
“While restoration tries to maintain those structures and make sure we don’t lose what we have, there are sections of the coast like Miami Beach where we don’t have reefs,” he said. 
“We can use active coral restoration to fill in those gaps.” 
The latest iterations of the project also were 3D printed, a move that’s expected to both speed up development and drastically cut costs. 
The printers use a special type of marine concrete that allows corals to attach themselves more easily. 
“With that, we started really pushing the limits of what can be done,” said Adam Friedman, co-founder of 3D printing company 1print, which made the structures. 
“The beauty of 3D printing is you can be a mobile factory. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Alex Harris: 1.5%The Columbian: 2.9%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 3.1%Alex Harris: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 5.0%Alex Harris: 1.2%The Columbian: 3.3%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Alex Harris: 5.4%The Columbian: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias1.1%This article: 3.6%Alex Harris: 2.2%The Columbian: 6.5%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Alex Harris: 0.8%The Columbian: 1.1%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.6%Alex Harris: 11.7%The Columbian: 2.7%Optimism Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Alex Harris: 1.2%The Columbian: 9.1%Negativity Bias4.7%This article: 2.7%Alex Harris: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Alex Harris: 0.9%The Columbian: 1.4%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.0%Alex Harris: 3.5%The Columbian: 3.0%Appeal to Authority10.0%This article: 3.3%Alex Harris: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.9%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 3.1%Alex Harris: 0.8%The Columbian: 1.4%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%Alex Harris: 3.4%The Columbian: 3.3%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.2%Alex Harris: 1.1%The Columbian: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.0%Alex Harris: 0.7%The Columbian: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Alex Harris: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 1.8%Alex Harris: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Alex Harris: 0.4%The Columbian: 1.1%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 1.4%Alex Harris: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.4%This article: 1.1%Alex Harris: 0.3%The Columbian: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.2%Alex Harris: 1.6%The Columbian: 0.6%Special Pleading3.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Alex Harris: 1.0%The Columbian: 2.4%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 0.6%Alex Harris: 0.2%The Columbian: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 5.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 1.1%Alex Harris: 0.3%The Columbian: 1.0%Indoctrination1.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Harris: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Alex Harris: 2.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

969 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech680writer words
Selected voice

Adam Friedman

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words13% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adam Friedman: 100.0%100.0%

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.