Heat Advisory for North and Central Sebastian, Southern Crawford, Central and Southern Franklin From Noon to 7 PM CDT Thursday
The National Weather Service warns of possible heat-related illnesses Thursday afternoon in parts of Arkansas and Oklahoma.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 12:56 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 12:56 p.m. ETFirst report
Heat Advisory for North and Central Sebastian, Southern Crawford, Central and Southern Franklin Until 7 PM CDT Thursday
The National Weather Service in Tulsa has issued a Heat Advisory for Thursday, September 3, 2026, from noon to 7 PM CDT. The advisory is in effect until 7 PM CDT Thursday. It covers portions of northwest and west central Arkansas and east central, northeast, and southeast Oklahoma, including North and Central Sebastian, Southern Crawford, and Central and Southern Franklin, as well as cities such as Tulsa, Muskogee, and Fort Smith.
Heat index values up to 109 degrees are expected. The advisory warns that heat-related illnesses are possible, especially for those not acclimated to the conditions or those performing strenuous activities.
Residents are advised to take extra precautions when outside, wear lightweight and loose-fitting clothing, and limit strenuous activities to early morning or evening. The advisory also urges people to take action when they see symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke.
The advisory was issued at 11:53 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 2, 2026.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 17:03current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 16:56current
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.