Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Disasters & emergencies fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about disasters & emergencies. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

3,262 published reviews in this topic

Vishvas NewsDisasters & emergencies

వరద, బురదకు సంబంధించిన ఈ ఫోటోలు తెలంగాణకు చెందినవి

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns photos of cars and auto-rickshaws swept away or buried in mud, circulated as evidence of flooding in Telangana. Vishvas News says it investigated those specific viral images and concluded that they were not from Telangana, but showed flooding in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The article also reports that a Telangana news website had used one of the photos with a story about heavy rain in Karimnagar district, then removed it from the link that circulated on WhatsApp. To trace the images, the investigation says it checked them individually using Google reverse-image search. It found the first photo in a video from a YouTube channel called “chave weather – daily videos,” which the article describes as concerning Rajasthan floods. It says the second photo, showing only the top of an auto-rickshaw above the mud, also appears in that video and in an ABP Live gallery. The gallery caption identified the scene as vehicles buried in mud after heavy rain in Jaipur. The article further reports that Manish Goda, identified as a senior correspondent for Naiduniya in Jaipur, confirmed the photos were taken after heavy rain in Jaipur on August 14. Taken together, the image matches and the location-specific caption and reporter confirmation support the review’s finding that the photos were misattributed to Telangana.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturDisasters & emergencies

Bei Facebook wird der Screenshot eines Tweets verbreitet. Neben dem Foto einer Wolke ist darin zu lesen, dass eine Frau in einem Video behaupte, ein Atomkraftwerk sei gerade explodiert. Das Unglück soll in der US-Stadt Panama City Beach im Bundesstaat Florida geschehen sein.

Publisher’s rating: Die Rauchwolke ist nicht die Folge eines explodierten Atomkraftwerkes. Es handelt sich um ein kontrolliertes Feuer, das vom US-amerikanischen Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) gelegt wurde.

The Facebook post showed a screenshot of a tweet with a photograph of a large smoke plume. In the video behind the tweet, a woman filming from a car claimed that a nuclear power plant had just exploded in Panama City Beach, Florida. The tweet’s author, Faruk Firat, said in another post that he did not believe her. The review therefore examined the specific plume and allegation in the video, not just a general claim about nuclear power plants. The review notes that the U.S. Energy Information Administration listed three nuclear power plants in Florida, but none in the north of the state near Panama City Beach. That location check did not, by itself, explain the smoke. The review’s account of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s response supplied the explanation: the agency said the plume came from a prescribed, controlled fire intended to clear trees and plants killed by Hurricane Michael in 2018. The fire was set on August 8, 2020, at Tyndall Air Force Base. The review says videos published by the agency show the fire on the base, and that regional media also reported on it. It concludes that the video did show a large smoke plume in Panama City Beach, but attributes it to the controlled fire rather than to an exploded nuclear plant.

FACTLYDisasters & emergencies

Video of a DTC bus being flooded with rainwater in Delhi

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a video showing rainwater flooding a bus, said to be a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus in Delhi. FACTLY’s investigation identifies the footage as showing a bus in Jaipur instead: it says the video was taken at Narayan Singh Circle, Rajasthan, and concludes that it is not related to a DTC bus in Delhi. This directly contradicts both the location and bus identification in the claim. FACTLY describes comparing screenshots from the circulating video with material found through Google Reverse Image Search. That search led to a longer version uploaded by the YouTube channel Cobrapost, titled “Water enters the low-floor bus during the heavy rains in Jaipur | Cobrapost.” The review also says Patrika posted the video in connection with an incident in Jaipur. The longer footage provides a visible identifying detail: at 1 minute 1 second, the words “Jaipur Bus” can be seen on the bus window. FACTLY further says the surroundings in the footage match street-view imagery of Narayan Singh Circle in Jaipur. Taken together, the video’s bus marking and location evidence support Jaipur, not Delhi, as the setting.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturDisasters & emergencies

In einem Beitrag wird behauptet, die gewaltige Explosion im Hafengelände von Beirut Anfang August sei von einer Rakete ausgelöst worden. «Die Rakete vor der grossen Explosion in Beirut», heißt es in dem Post. Dazu gestellt ist ein Foto der Detonationsstelle im Hafen, auf dem eine Rakete zu sehen ist.

Publisher’s rating: Nach allen bisherigen Erkenntnissen ist die Explosion in Beirut wegen der unsachgemäßen Lagerung von hochexplosiven Chemikalien verursacht worden. Es gibt keine Belege für einen Raketenbeschuss.

The post described in the claim used a photograph of the Beirut port blast to suggest a rocket had caused the explosion. The review identifies the image as a screenshot from a manipulated video, rather than evidence of a real missile strike: “Ein Screenshot dieser Fälschung wird auch in dem Facebookpost verwendet.” The review compared the purported footage with original recordings. It says that, frame by frame, a digitally altered rocket briefly appears and then disappears; a separate video that purported to reveal a missile through a negative effect also showed an object added artificially. The article further notes that videos filmed close to the blast site showed neither a rocket nor a comparable impact. The explosion occurred on August 4 at Beirut’s port. The review reports that large quantities of ammonium nitrate exploded and that the precise trigger remained unclear at the time. It distinguishes that unresolved question from the unsupported claim that a rocket caused the blast: the government was investigating whether the event was an accident or an external attack, but the review says the available material provided no evidence of a missile strike.

FACTLYDisasters & emergencies

Video of a couple playing in the floodwaters that entered into their home in Delhi

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim is that a video of a couple playing in floodwater shows water that entered their home in rain-hit Delhi. FACTLY’s review says the footage instead shows flooding in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, in September 2019, and therefore is unrelated to the Delhi event described in the claim. The review reports that a reverse image search led to a news article reporting the same video. That article placed the incident in Prayagraj in September 2019. FACTLY also points to video reporting of the incident, and says the footage is old rather than from Delhi. These details directly address the video’s provenance and the claim about its location and timing.

Deutscher Presse-AgenturDisasters & emergencies

Im Hafen der libanesischen Hauptstadt Beirut ist es am 4. August 2020 zu einer verheerenden Explosion gekommen. Die Bilder des aufsteigenden Explosionspilzes erinnern offenbar einige an die Atomkatastrophe im japanischen Hiroshima im Jahr 1945. So kursiert dieser Tage auf Facebook ein Sharepic, das angeblich beide Explosionen zeigt.

Publisher’s rating: - und kein Foto der Nuklearkatastrophe. Das andere Motiv stammt tatsächlich aus Beirut. Experten gehen davon aus, dass dort Ammoniumnitrat explodiert ist.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturDisasters & emergencies

In einem Posting auf Facebook wird ein Bild eines brennenden Hochhauses geteilt. Schwarze Rauchschwaden steigen über dem Gebäude in den Himmel auf. Daneben schreibt der User «Welt Wirtschafts Organisation, WTO in Genf Schweiz brennt». (sic!)

Publisher’s rating: Bei dem brennenden Gebäude handelt es sich um das World Trade Center (WTC) in Brüssel.

The review examines a Facebook post showing a burning high-rise with black smoke and a caption claiming that the World Trade Organization in Geneva was on fire. Its investigation instead identifies the pictured building as the World Trade Center in Brussels. The review describes comparing visible features in the post with the building on Google Maps, rather than relying on the caption to establish the location. [S1] That comparison focused on a red “The Future here” banner and a crane visible in both the post and the map imagery. The review also notes that the building beside the WTC appears in the map view, while smoke obscures the “WTC” sign in the Facebook image. As corroboration, it points to a report about a Brussels fire that occurred the previous day and a YouTube video giving a clearer view of the incident. [S1]

Deutsche Presse-AgenturDisasters & emergencies

Op Facebook is een foto geplaatst van een brand in een "tankstation in Dommelen" waarbij "twee doden en gewonden vielen". De politie zou om hulp vragen bij de identificatie van de slachtoffers.

Publisher’s rating: Er was recent geen brand met doden of gewonden in een tankstation in Dommelen. De bijgevoegde foto is al bijna 7 jaar oud.

The post claimed that a fire at a gas station in Dommelen had caused deaths and injuries, and that police were asking people to help identify the victims. The review reports that Marco van Rossum, a spokesperson for police in Noord-Brabant, said there had recently been no gas-station fire in Dommelen. He explained that an incident of this scale would be known to police and would prompt police and fire-service teams to respond. In his words, “als er bij de politie niets van bekend is, is het zeker dat zo'n brand recent niet heeft plaatsgevonden.” The image was also not from a recent incident in Dommelen. The review traces it to a report published on the local news site Blik op Nieuws on 30 November 2013, about a large fire at a Shell station in Geldrop, around 15 kilometres from Dommelen. That report described “forse schade” but no injuries. The post therefore combined an old image from another town with a false account of recent deaths and injuries. The review also examined the post’s purported police-identification link. It led to a page on medicalhomecare.com, a site previously used for phishing; the link was not working when the review checked it. The investigation thus found no recent Dommelen fire matching the post and identified a different origin for the photograph.