Erupting or silent, volcanoes have always captured our imagination.
Authors
- Janine Krippner
Honorary Research Associate in Volcanology/Mātai Puia, University of Waikato
- Heather Handley
Senior Curator of Geosciences, Museums Victoria Research Institute; Monash University
As volcanologists, we have seen how that fascination can collide with rolling news coverage and social media, amplifying false claims, misleading images and long-standing misconceptions about how volcanoes behave. We want to help.
Much more than simply getting the science wrong, misinformation can distort people's perceptions of hazards and risk and influence how they respond to an eruption.
With this in mind, we sought to better understand which misconceptions about volcanoes are most common and how they take hold and spread.
Our newly published research draws on our own experiences as science communicators, as well as an analysis of hundreds of international media articles published during volcanic events.
By providing a clearer picture, we hope to help journalists communicate volcanic hazards more accurately - and to help everyone from any background recognise misleading information.
When misconceptions become misinformation
Our international study team included experts from universities, volcano observatories, and government agencies, while our media analysis covered 375 articles published between 2017 and 2022.
We identified 18 common misconceptions spanning everything from seismology and volcanic hazards to climate, eruption timescales and misleading images.
Some involved attention-grabbing terms such as the Pacific Ring of Fire , supervolcanoes and mega-tsunamis . Others reflected more basic misunderstandings about how volcanoes work.
Volcanic ash , for instance, is often described as "smoke". In fact, it consists of tiny fragments of rock, crystals, and volcanic glass, mixed with gases and water vapour in an eruption plume.
Similarly, the term magma "chamber" can suggest a vast underground tank of liquid magma. The reality beneath many volcanoes is more complex, involving networks of molten rock, crystals and gas.
We also examined how misinformation spreads during volcanic events around the world.
During Mt Agung's 2017 unrest and eruption in Bali , old footage of other volcanoes was presented as current activity, while clouds and gas emissions were wrongly reported as eruptions.
Some reports suggested an eruption could affect the entire island, contributing to tourist cancellations and leaving volcanologists to counter false information.
More recently, a 2025 eruption of Mt Etna in Sicily produced a pyroclastic flow within an area already closed to the public. Videos of tourists outside the affected area moving away were shared as people "fleeing for their lives", creating the impression Sicily itself was unsafe.
The resulting coverage fuelled public anxiety and tourism concerns, while exaggerating the actual danger.
We also examined misinformation surrounding Yellowstone volcano in the United States, which has often been portrayed as an "overdue" supervolcano capable of destroying humanity.
Documentaries, disaster films, and tabloid media have exaggerated the likelihood and potential impacts of a future eruption, while earthquakes have been portrayed as signs an eruption is imminent. In reality, its last 50 or so eruptions were lava flows with only local impacts.
How to spot volcano misinformation
So, how can people navigate the flood of information online during a volcanic crisis?
We recommend first checking the source. Start with organisations responsible for monitoring and managing the volcano, including volcano observatories, geological agencies, and emergency management authorities.
Scientists and other experts can also provide valuable context, but it is worth considering whether they are speaking within their area of expertise.
When it comes to reporting about what a volcano might do next, it is also important to distinguish between what is possible and what is likely.
Volcano science involves uncertainty and scientists and emergency managers may discuss a range of scenarios because they need to prepare for what is more likely.
But an alarming headline stating a volcano "could" produce a massive eruption or tsunami can easily be written as suggesting that it "will".
And before sharing images and videos they encounter online, it's always a good idea to ensure they're credible - particularly as AI-generated content becomes more common.
Is the image actually from the volcano being discussed? Has the same image appeared elsewhere online with a different location or date?
Even with intensive monitoring, volcanologists cannot always forecast what a volcano will do next. Good communication can, however, help people understand what is happening, what could happen, and what is most likely.
That distinction is more important than we might think. Describing volcanic ash as "just smoke" can cause people to underestimate its hazards, while calling a volcano " overdue " can make an eruption seem inevitable.
Our guide is intended to help journalists and individuals recognise such misconceptions, assess the evidence behind claims, and make better-informed decisions during volcanic events.
For journalists in particular, our message is simple: there's no need to exaggerate the science. Volcanoes are interesting enough on their own.
The authors acknowledge the contribution to this article of study co-author Sam Poppe, Assistant Professor in Planetary Volcanology at the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
