FirstAlerts

Happy Noodle in Kent Recorded 88 Violation Points in August Health Inspection

King County public health logs show Happy Noodle was inspected again five days later and received a satisfactory result.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 12:17 p.m. ET
, located at in , Washington, recorded 88 violation points during an Aug. 12, 2026 health inspection, where an inspection with no violations scores zero, according to public health logs. The initial inspection result was listed as with an inspection score of for the risk category 3 establishment. The situation remains open and developing. The establishment has since been inspected again. Public health logs show was inspected again on Aug. 17, 2026, with the result recorded as "Satisfactory". During the Aug. 12 inspection, observations attributed to the inspection listed the following violations: 1710 - Proper hot holding temperatures; less than 130 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (54 degrees Celsius (C)); 3200 - Insects, rodents, animals not present; entrance controlled; 1100 - Proper disposition of returned, unsafe, or contaminated food; proper date marking procedures for food at high risk for Listeria; 1900 - No room temperature storage; proper use of time as a control, procedures available; 3000 - Proper thawing methods used; 2110 - Proper cold holding temperatures; greater than 45 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (7 degrees Celsius (C)); and 0600 - Adequate handwashing facilities.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 16:17current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.