Massive, metal-encrusted megalodon teeth litter deep ocean floor 6%

By Andrew Paul38%

8/4/2026, 8:04:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 461 faulty-reasoning hits from 473 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.5% and a BS Rank of 6% (25,727 of 27,195 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.60% of the article peer group.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a little over halfway through a nearly month-long deep sea survey of the South Pacific near the Cook Islands. 
Its remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have already amassed hours of footage, while onboard equipment is collecting valuable samples and sensor data along the abyssal plain. 
Much of this data will help the Cook Islands plan ways to utilize natural ocean resources like polymetallic nodules , masses along the seabed containing valuable rare earth materials. 
Much more than metals and minerals are locked inside these nodules, however. 
As NOAA recently highlighted on their expedition’s website , the formations often contain the teeth from one of the most famous prehistoric apex predators. 
“Based on their size, with many measuring over seven centimeters (three inches) in length, the teeth likely belonged to megalodon sharks,” NOAA researchers explained . 
This shark tooth was seen resting on the seafloor during Dive 09 of the 2026 Cook Islands ROV Exploration. 
At the time, the mission team was interacting live with Cook Islands Primer Minister Mark Brown, who guided remotely operated vehicles in the collection of the tooth. 
Credit: NOAA Ocean Exploration, 2026 Cook Islands ROV Exploration NOAA Ocean Exploration 
Thanks to a skeleton composed primarily of cartilage and connective tissues, sharks don’t leave much behind after they die. 
This makes it hard enough to recover and study the remains of recently deceased ocean hunters, much less their ancient evolutionary ancestors. 
Thankfully, sharks leave behind plenty of teeth, many of which fossilize over millions of years. 
Palm-sized teeth from megalodon ( Otodus megalodon ) are so common along the coasts of Maryland that the massive deep-sea stalker is the first official state shark . 
Megalodon went extinct over three million years ago, allowing plenty of time for their teeth to sink to the ocean floor. 
Once there, they began to fossilize while also drawing and absorbing rare earth elements (REEs) from the ambient water column and sediment. 
Over the ensuing millenia, REEs like neodymium along with minerals such as iron and manganese slowly layered atop the teeth. 
“Analyzing the concentration of REEs such as neodymium trapped in the teeth can serve as a tool for tracking past ocean circulation patterns,” NOAA wrote. 
The crew’s next ROV 3.5-mile-deep dive is scheduled to launch on August 4 at 2:30 p.m. 
EDT, then arrive on the seafloor about three hours later. 
From there, it will survey the abyssal plain near the Cook Islands’ northern border with American Samoa for about four hours. 
All expedition times are subject to change, depending on technical and weather issues. 
But regardless of when the ROVs return, the ancient megalodon teeth will be there waiting for them. 
The post Massive, metal-encrusted megalodon teeth litter deep ocean floor appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.3%Popular Science: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Andrew Paul: 2.7%Popular Science: 2.4%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 3.9%Popular Science: 3.1%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 3.9%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Andrew Paul: 3.6%Popular Science: 2.5%Negativity Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Andrew Paul: 1.3%Popular Science: 1.7%Halo Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.3%Popular Science: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.4%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.4%Appeal to Authority10.4%This article: 3.6%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Andrew Paul: 4.6%Popular Science: 3.5%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.8%Popular Science: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.2%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Andrew Paul: 1.8%Popular Science: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.4%Andrew Paul: 2.0%Popular Science: 1.4%Unattributed Quote10.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.2%Andrew Paul: 4.6%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice4.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

473 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech372writer words
Selected voice

NOAA

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words49% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%NOAA: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%NOAA: 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.