This week's final Senate inquiry report on shark mitigation and deterrent measures has shed some timely science that challenges some widely held myths. Here are five of the top ones addressed in the inquiry.

Myth 1: Sharks target humans

If this were true sharks would be lining up at popular beaches such as Bondi in Sydney or St Kilda in Melbourne.

As the federal government notes, the majority of human-shark encounters appear to be the result of a shark confusing the victim with its normal prey.

Daniel Bucher, of the Southern Cross University, noted in his evidence to the inquiry, sharks are opportunistic, apex predators. If they approach humans, it is typically with caution.

"That is why a lot of the attacks are from behind," Professor Bucher told the inquiry.

Of 180 species of sharks found in Australian waters, about 99 per cent of fatalities have been attributed to just three - great whites, tigers and bulls - the inquiry found.

Myth 2: Shark nets work

Advocates of shark nets like to highlight that of the 47 deaths from shark bites in the past 50 years in Australian waters, all but two were at beaches without mesh.

But drawing a causal connection between the two is fraught.

In his submission, Chris Pepin-Neff from the University of Sydney noted it is impossible to prove a snared shark would have bitten a human. In fact, the data suggests otherwise, with most sharks caught during periods when, historically, there were the fewest fatalities.

Dr Pepin-Neff also noted that 40 per cent of sharks were caught on the beach side of the nets.

Netted beaches in NSW, including those dating back to the 1930s in Sydney, have recorded 29 shark bite incidents. Better access to medical care compared to remote beaches may explain why fatalities at such locations are relatively few.

Unless bays are enclosed, sharks can swim around, under or over nets. The northern coast of NSW, the centre of net controversy in the past year or so, also has nets on only about 1 kilometre of the 30-plus kilometres of beaches around Ballina.

Bycatch is one certainty, as shown by this week's snaring of non-target rays and a shark at nets near Ballina.

Myth 3: Sharks make beach activities dangerous

According to the Taronga shark attack file, visits to Australia's beaches number at least 100 million a year. In 2017, it counted 17 unprovoked or two provoked attacks, with one fatality, in Western Australia.

By contrast, 116 people drowned along Australia's coasts during the year to June 30, the federal government said on Thursday. That rough 100-1 ratio of drownings to shark-bite fatalities is also noted in the inquiry report.

Lifesavers rescued almost 11,000 people during the year.

Rob Brander, from the University of NSW, noted three people had drowned in rips in the past 10 days alone.

"In the grand scheme of things, it's massive," Associate Professor Brander said.

If more money were spent on lifesavers and patrols, "you'd probably save more lives than are killed by sharks", he said.

Myth 4: Shark populations are exploding

Nature imposes limits on the ability of apex predators - except humans - to reproduce.

Two decades of Commonwealth protection of great whites are unlikely to have resulted in a jump in numbers.

White sharks only reach sexual maturity at 17 to 20 years of age, and have just one or two offspring every couple of years, Professor Jessica Meeuwig of the University of Western Australia told the inquiry.

Quite why there are clusters of shark bites - such as off the north coast of NSW a couple of years back - remains unclear.

One reason may be changes in prey distribution. Whale numbers, for instance, are clearly rising as species recover after the steep reduction in whaling. But a WA study found little evidence of shark movements changing to follow whale migration.

Myth 5: Politicians need to respond to shark bites

With so many people entering the water, encounters with wildlife are inevitable unless we want to swim in marine deserts.

When somebody does get bitten, the media will typically grab stock Jaws-like pictures of sharks to sensationalise the tragic event in ways that are rarely mimicked for other unfortunate deaths.

Research published this week in Marine Policy by Dr Pepin-Neff and Thomas Wynter argues the public may be less anxious for action than politicians assume.

"The phrase 'shark attack' is intent-laden so it produces a narrative that increases fear even if there is no injury," Dr Pepin-Neff said.

"Politicians are responding to preconceived notions that the small sections of the public will be outraged - 'something must be done,'" he said.

"We even specifically asked if the public blamed government for shark bites and the answer was 4 per cent 'yes', 96 per cent 'no'".