Sperm whales blow bubbles to help them nap 12%

By Margherita Bassi10%

7/23/2026, 3:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Representativeness Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 816 faulty-reasoning hits from 644 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.9% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,296 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.20% of the article peer group.

A growing body of research is revealing surprisingly human characteristics in sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus )—they might have an alphabet and they even employ vowels like humans in their communication. 
Now, researchers have investigated another highly familiar behavior in this marine mammal: sleeping. 
Researchers theorize that sperm whales nap for 10 to 15 minutes at a time underwater, in a vertical position with their heads pointing upwards. 
By sleeping this year, they are out of the reach of tumultuous surface waters, but sufficiently close to pop up when they need to take a breath. 
But their heads are huge and buoyant, so how do these cetaceans avoid floating up in their sleep? 
Researchers writing in a Journal of Experimental Biology paper suggest that the answer is blowing bubbles. 
Lead author Noémie Freymond tells Popular Science that fellow co-author Patrick Miller , “provided the first detailed description of sperm whale resting behavior. 
He observed that sperm whales release bubbles while sleeping, but it had never been demonstrated why they do so.” 
Freymond conducted her master’s thesis research on sperm whale resting behavior. 
She is now a PhD student at the University of Neuchâtel, where she studies sleep in chimpanzees. 
Miller is a researcher at the University of St Andrews’s School of Biology. 
The team monitored 42 sperm whales in Norway’s Lofoten Islands using devices that record whale bubble sounds. 
They noted each whale’s depth and the body orientation, which signaled when the whales were sleeping. 
The devices were suctioned to the whales, and the team collected them after they detached from the whales and floated up to the surface of the water. 
Then it was off to the lab. 
Sperm whales at rest. 
Image: University of St Andrews 
Sperm whales can rest in three various ways. 
They can slowly sink around 26 feet deep, tail-first. 
They can also dive, head first, not too far before their buoyant heads turn up again. 
Or they can dive deeply—more than 656 feet—and rest as they float back up. 
In this context, the team discovered that whales resting closer to the surface of the water released more bubbles while sleeping. 
Specifically, they blew bubbles around 11 times in each nap. 
The sperm whales resting as they floated up from greater profundity blew bubbles just three or four times throughout their ascending nap. 
Blowing bubbles allows the sperm whales to control their buoyancy , the researchers argue. 
The whales napping close to the surface of the water blow out some of the air in their lungs, which then prevents them from floating back up. 
Deep-diving naps require more oxygen, so you’d think they have to release more air to prevent buoyancy, but that’s actually not how it works. 
The water pressure at greater depths makes the whales less buoyant, even if they have more air in their lungs, so they don’t need to release as many bubbles to keep themselves underwater. 
“We were lucky to have access to such a large dataset with many tag deployments, because the main challenge is that a deployment must last long enough to capture resting behaviour,” explains Freymond. 
“This allowed us to show that sperm whales release bubbles to regulate their buoyancy while resting.” 
What the team still can’t definitively say is whether sperm whales blow bubbles in their sleep consciously or unconsciously. 
When a dolphin sleeps, half of its brain is still awake—is that how sperm whales are, too? 
Or are they completely asleep, like humans? 
Releasing air to control buoyancy necessitates an awareness of the environment, after all. 
It remains to be seen what future research will burst this bubble. 
More importantly, scientists should not investigate whether whales blowing bubbles in their sleep counts as cetacean snoring. 
The post Sperm whales blow bubbles to help them nap appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.4%Margherita Bassi: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Margherita Bassi: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 9.5%Margherita Bassi: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Margherita Bassi: 4.8%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias15.1%This article: 1.9%Margherita Bassi: 3.6%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.9%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 1.5%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Margherita Bassi: 1.8%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Margherita Bassi: 5.7%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 3.7%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Margherita Bassi: 4.9%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring2.6%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.5%Margherita Bassi: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 13.8%Margherita Bassi: 2.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%Margherita Bassi: 3.5%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground3.7%This article: 2.8%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.8%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.7%Margherita Bassi: 3.0%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.7%This article: 3.6%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 6.7%Margherita Bassi: 4.7%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice6.7%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.1%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

644 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech537writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJournal of Experimental Biology • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNoémie Freymond • 23 words • 100.0% coverageNoémie Freymond • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageNoémie Freymond • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNoémie Freymond • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Noémie Freymond

79%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words85% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Unattributed Quote+61.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Noémie Freymond: 61.5%61.5%Quote-first Misdirection+25.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Noémie Freymond: 25.3%25.3%Biased Writer Voice-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Noémie Freymond: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Noémie Freymond: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.