A fire’s rumble reveals where it’s burning 18%

By Katherine Kornei22%

7/31/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Optimism Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 14.8% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 732 faulty-reasoning hits from 677 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.9% and a BS Rank of 18% (25,166 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

It’s not just eyes on a fire  it’s now ears, too. 
A low-intensity grassland fire “hums” loudly enough to be monitored by sound alone, researchers report in the July 16 Geophysical Research Letters. 
Acoustic sensors deployed near a prescribed Idaho burn picked up the low-frequency rumble it gave off and followed where it was burning  a sign the technique can detect relatively weak fires. 
Similar acoustic monitoring has picked up a fire before  another team reported detecting a prescribed forest fire in 2025. 
But that fire burned hotter. 
The Idaho burn was in a damp landscape and therefore was low intensity. 
“That’s encouraging for the broader use” of the technique, says Jake Anderson, a geophysicist at Boise State University in Idaho. 
In the past, wildfires tended to be spotted by people perched atop lookout stations. 
Today, satellites and airborne platforms track most fires. 
But even the newer technology comes with limitations: Smoke and flames  the traditional harbingers of a fire  can be obscured by clouds and trees. 
“A lot of those things require direct line of sight,” says Cody Evers, an environmental scientist at Portland State University in Oregon who was not involved in the research. 
Turning to sound waves, specifically those at frequencies below the range of human hearing, is an alternative. 
Fires emit pressure waves with frequencies ranging from 1 to 20 hertz as they continuously release plumes of hot gas and draw in cold air in a process called puffing. 
(Human ears are sensitive to frequencies between roughly 20 and 20,000 hertz.) 
“Infrasound can give you very fast alerts about how a fire is changing,” Anderson says. 
“And it can do so in poor-visibility conditions.” 
In 2023, Anderson and his colleagues placed more than 90 infrasound sensors across a swath of southwestern Idaho scheduled for a prescribed fire. 
The team designed and built the instruments, each less than a kilogram and roughly the size of a paperback book, and distributed them across eight arrays containing anywhere from three to 44 sensors. 
With arrays of sensors, it’s possible to estimate where a sound is coming from, says Madeline Hunt, a geophysicist at Boise State University. 
The technique should be familiar, she says: “With two ears, you can get a better idea of the direction to something, more than if you were just listening with one ear.” 
Anderson, Hunt and their colleagues found that the largest array, located nearly two kilometers from the fire, accurately tracked the fire’s spread over the course of several hours. 
The infrasound tended to arrive from the same direction as the helicopter responsible for igniting the fire. 
Crucially though, the infrasound signal persisted even when the helicopter left for refueling, evidence that the sound was due to the fire itself, the team concludes. 
The next step will be to study a wildfire. 
But that’s more logistically difficult, Anderson says, since researchers may not be able to safely access affected terrain. 
“In the long run, an ideal solution would be to have a technology that’s installable by firefighters themselves.” 
Evers says that wind might prove to be a limiting factor. 
Larger fires are often associated with high winds, and wind produces copious amounts of infrasound. 
“If there’s a lot of wind around,” he says, “it could create all sorts of problems.” 
Infrasound might do more than track a fire  it may also help fight one. 
Sonic Fire Tech, a company based in Cleveland, is marketing fire-suppression systems based on infrasound. 
Earlier this year, Sonic Fire Tech demonstrated how a small indoor cooking fire could be extinguished using its technology. 
There’s no mess from overhead sprinklers, and the sound waves don’t pose a danger to humans or pets, the company notes. 
However, it’s highly unlikely that such technology would translate to prescribed fires or wildfires in nature, Anderson says. 
That’s because sound waves spread spherically and dramatically lose power if they’re not confined. 
“I would be surprised if anytime soon we see a long-range, outdoor infrasound tool for extinguishing fires.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.7%Katherine Kornei: 3.3%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.4%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Katherine Kornei: 1.3%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 4.6%Katherine Kornei: 0.9%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Katherine Kornei: 1.8%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 4.3%Katherine Kornei: 1.9%Science News: 3.2%Framing Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.1%Katherine Kornei: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%Katherine Kornei: 4.4%Science News: 3.2%Optimism Bias9.7%This article: 6.6%Katherine Kornei: 1.8%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.8%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Katherine Kornei: 0.6%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Katherine Kornei: 0.6%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.8%Katherine Kornei: 2.9%Science News: 3.4%Appeal to Authority14.8%This article: 2.5%Katherine Kornei: 0.5%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 2.2%Katherine Kornei: 0.4%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope2.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.2%Katherine Kornei: 1.0%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization2.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.8%Katherine Kornei: 1.1%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.8%Katherine Kornei: 0.8%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.8%Katherine Kornei: 2.2%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.4%Katherine Kornei: 0.5%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Katherine Kornei: 0.8%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.7%Katherine Kornei: 0.9%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice4.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Kornei: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Katherine Kornei: 3.7%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.3%

677 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers38%attributed speech417writer words
Selected voice

Sonic Fire Tech

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words14% of attributed speech51% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sonic Fire Tech: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Sonic Fire Tech: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Sonic Fire Tech: 0.0%0.0%

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.