This example
of scientific misinformation
is about
how the ABC
misleads the public
about the causes of dementia.
The ABC's reports about
the causes of dementia
carefully avoid being blatantly false,
but they are misleading
because of
a serious error of omission.
The ABC is a prolific producer
of reports about dementia.
Many of its reports
about dementia
are human interest stories
about how patients and carers
are coping with the illness.
Some of its reports
include information about
the causes of dementia.
In an article
published on 13 September 2025
in the ABC website,
"Advocates call for action on brain health as AIHW
reveals dementia is leading cause of death",
air pollution was
inexplicably omitted from a list
of the known main risk factors
for developing dementia.
The list of dementia risk factors
in the ABC's report
was extracted
from a report titled
"Dementia in Australia"
published on 12 September 2025
by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW)
which is funded by the Government
of Australia.
The AIHW report
appears to have obtained
its information
about the causes of dementia
from an authoritative report
about the causes of dementia
published by "The Lancet" in 2024.
The AIHW's report stated:
"Risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing dementia include:
Obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, air pollution, head injury, high blood
pressure, untreated hearing loss, untreated vision loss, depression and diabetes."
Whereas the ABC's report stated:
"Obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, high blood pressure,
untreated hearing and vision loss, depression and diabetes increase the risk of developing
dementia."
The only difference
is that
"air pollution"
was omitted
from the ABC's version of the list.
None of the other
causes of dementia
were omitted.
See "
Dementia and Air Pollution"
for more information about
the link between air pollution and dementia,
including rankings
of the main causes of dementia.
According to "The Lancet",
air pollution ranks in
equal fifth place
with depression and brain injury
as one of the
leading causes of preventable dementia.
Air pollution
ranks lower than only
hearing loss,
high cholesterol,
less education
and social isolation.
Air pollution
is a bigger cause of dementia
than each of
physical inactivity,
diabetes,
smoking,
high blood pressure,
vision loss,
obesity
and excessive alcohol consumption.
The ABC cannot claim
that the omission
of air pollution
from the ABC's report of 13 September 2025
was an accidental oversight.
The ABC was notified
of the omission
and was requested
to rectify the error.
The ABC did not even
bother to reply.
Then they did it again.
In an article titled
"Scientists find physical exercise can reduce
risk of developing dementia"
published by the ABC
a few days later
on 22 September 2025,
it was mentioned that there are
fourteen modifiable risk factors
for dementia.
Instead of
taking the opportunity
to correct the error of omission
from its previous report of 13 September 2025,
in its new report of 22 September
air pollution was yet again
not mentioned.
This time,
the ABC's report
mentioned eight
and omitted six
of the fourteen
non-genetic main causes
of dementia.
By omitting
six of the
fourteen causes,
this time the ABC
skilfully prevented
any accusation from arising
that the ABC had
deliberately chosen to omit
only air pollution.
The repeated omission
leads to the conclusion
that there is a high probability
that the ABC
deliberately chooses
to actively prevent
its audience
from becoming aware
that air pollution
is a leading cause of dementia.
The ABC's misrepresentation
of the causes of dementia
helps to maintain
a longstanding
lack of public awareness
about the strong link
between air pollution
and dementia.
Many Australians love smoke.
Some people
like smoke so much
that they will go to great lengths
to prevent
any restrictions being placed
on the creation of smoke.
Evidence for this
can be found
in the many ways
in which the regulation
of smoke
is either absurdly inadequate
or is completely absent.
For example,
current regulations allow
rural landholders
in southeast Queensland,
and probably also in other regions,
to do as much
burning-off as they please,
subject only to
conditions imposed
by a local fire warden,
which are usually
only to do
with such things as firebreaks,
weather conditions,
notifications,
appropriate monitoring
and availability of resources.
The quantity
of air pollution produced
is unfettered
and never merits
the slightest consideration.
Paradoxically,
the ABC seems to
be aware that smoke is
a substantial health hazard.
For example,
in an article published by the ABC
on 28 July 2025,
under a title that includes the phrase
"Wood heater pollution is a silent killer",
many of the health hazards
associated with
wood heater smoke
are described.
Except of course,
as usual the article fails
to mention dementia.
There is not the slightest doubt
that smoke
is a major health hazard,
and there is not the slightest doubt
that few people
in Australia
are aware of
the magnitude of the hazard,
and there is not the slightest doubt
that few people
in Australia
are aware of
the strong link
between
air pollution and dementia.
So,
what exactly is
the ABC's game?
The ABC's apparent aversion to reporting
that air pollution is one of the main
causes of dementia
seems to have begun after
17 September 2024.
On that date the ABC published
an article titled
"With dementia cases set to triple by 2050 in our region,
there are 14 risk factors to watch for".
The article
stated correctly
that air pollution
is a cause of dementia.
Why then is it that
the ABC now avoids informing
the public
that it is a scientifically-researched fact
that air pollution
is one of the
main preventable
causes of dementia?
Something must have changed at the ABC
since September 2024.
It would be logical to speculate that
somebody at the ABC
does not want the public
to be aware
that air pollution
is one of the
main causes
of dementia.
It can also be speculated
that some people who
have vested interests
in the creation of smoke
may be able to influence
what the ABC reports.
Could there be improper influence from
burnoff-loving primary producers?
The current Deputy Chair
of the ABC
happens to be a primary producer,
whose Wikipedia entry states
".... is an Australian farmer and grazier,
and a community advocate for the rural industry,
particularly women in the industry."
Could this be the source
of the ABC's apparent bias?
Alternatively,
could there be
improper influence from
some of the many affluent
users of smoke-spewing wood heaters
in suburbia,
perhaps some
well-heeled employees
of the ABC?
It is possible
that the ABC has
effective quality assurance
procedures in place
for most areas of its reporting,
apart from science.
Perhaps it is just scientific reporting
that needs more resources.
Misleading omissions
would be less likely to happen
if the ABC had
effective science-related
quality control mechanisms
in place.
12 May 2026
The ABC website
today published an article titled
"New study finds link between air pollution exposure and
risk of ending up in hospital".
It appears to be about a new study
led by a researcher
from Deakin University,
published earlier today
by CSIRO Publishing.
The ABC's article states that
"The report warned air pollution contributed to breathing difficulties, heart
problems and stroke, and acknowledged emerging links between pollution
and neurological disorders like dementia".
This is evidence that the ABC
now firmly accepts that air pollution
is one of the causes of dementia.
The use here
by the ABC
of the word
"dementia"
is more significant
than might appear at first glance,
because the study's report
does not actually mention dementia specifically.
The study's wording states
"the most widely recognised health
impacts of air pollution are cardiovascular and respiratory
diseases, such as ischaemic heart
disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
asthma, with emerging evidence for neurological disorders".
Policy makers and regulators
should take note
of the conclusions
of the new study,
such as
"policies should continuously target
air pollution reduction."
This example of scientific misinformation
concerns ABC news reports
about a "sinkhole"
that opened up
late in the evening
on Saturday 26 September 2015
at Inskip Point,
a popular holiday camping area
in southeast Queensland.
Although it is now
several years
since this particular event happened,
there are three
good reasons
for including it here
as an example.
Firstly,
the ABC's reports about
a "sinkhole" at Inskip Point
provide conclusive evidence
that there is
scientific incompetence
at all levels throughout the ABC,
from the top to the bottom
of the organisation.
The ABC's initial reporting
about the "sinkhole"
was scientifically laughable.
Secondly,
the writer of this critique
has an honours B.Sc. in geology
and possesses the geoscientific
knowledge required
to accurately interpret
the "sinkhole" that occurred
at Inskip Point.
Thirdly,
the writer of this critique
visited and inspected the "sinkhole".
In scientific reality,
the "sinkhole" at Inskip Point
was not a sinkhole.
It was
a collapse
of a steeply-sloping
sand beach,
a "beach collapse".
Other frequently-used terms
for the phenomenon are
"near-shore landslip"
and
"near-shore landslide".
Without getting into a lengthy
discussion about which term is best,
"beach collapse"
is the term used in this article.
The technically correct terminology is
"retrogressive breach flow slide".
There is a new
beach collapse at Inskip Point
every few months or years.
Beach collapses at Inskip Point
have always been
called "sinkholes"
by the general public
and by some
media hacks.
This will probably
always be the case,
but the ABC
ought to be capable
of doing better.
The "sinkhole"
engulfed
a vehicle, a caravan,
a camper-trailer
and some tents.
Although there were
lurid media reports
of panic
and people screaming
and shouting
in the darkness,
in reality
all campers
had enough time
to get out of harm's way,
although a few of them
lost their possessions.
For two days,
some ABC reports about the
beach collapse
stated definitely that it was a sinkhole
and other ABC reports
inferred that it could be a sinkhole.
These reports were scientifically
false and misleading.
One ABC report included a description
of genuine sinkholes
which created an impression
that there was a risk to campers
of sinkholes
opening up anywhere at any time.
In reality there was no sinkhole
and no risk to campers,
except for a risk of beach collapse
along a band of land
close to the shoreline.
Also,
whereas real sinkholes
remain dangerous
and sometimes can
increase in size catastrophically,
beach collapses at Inskip Point
stabilise
within three hours
of their inception.
A beach collapse
cannot re-start
after it has stopped expanding.
A day and a half after
the start of the collapse,
the ABC alarmingly reported
that the "sinkhole"
was still growing.
Provided that campers
at Inskip Point
did not camp
close to the shoreline,
then they were
not in any danger.
But for two days,
the ABC's reports
about the "sinkhole"
helped to stoke
fear, anxiety and alarm
among campers.
Hundreds of campers
left Inskip Point
the next day.
Queensland Government officials
ordered campers
in an area
near the beach collapse
to leave.
It can be speculated
that misleading alarmist
news reporting
may have influenced the officials
and may have influenced
other campers
to pack up and leave.
The alarmist nature
of the ABC's reporting
about the "sinkhole"
was unjustified.
There is no reasonable excuse
for the incompetence
of the ABC
that facilitated
alarmist reporting.
The ABC is
expected to set
a high standard
for others to follow.
The ABC ought to have
had sufficient relevant
scientific expertise
to have known that
what some people
were calling a "sinkhole"
wasn't actually a sinkhole.
Other media organisations
made similar errors.
Alarmist news reports
are good
for ratings.
Some commercial
media organisations
still confuse
beach collapses
with sinkholes.
A sinkhole forms
when the roof
of an underground cavern collapses
into the cavern.
Underground cavities
typically occur
in limestone,
parts of which have dissolved
over geological time.
There is no limestone
at Inskip Point.
Another cause of
near-surface underground caverns
is mining
of any type of solid rock.
Inskip Point
is a sand peninsula.
Underground mining
of unconsolidated sand
is not possible
because sand does not have
sufficient structural strength
to allow underground caverns
to exist.
It should have been obvious
that underground cavities
are unlikely to exist
at Inskip Point.
Also,
"sinkholes" at Inskip Point
only occur along the shoreline.
To anybody who was
aware of this,
it should have been obvious
that the "sinkholes" at Inskip Point
must be related to
something that occurs
only near the shoreline,
rather than being related
to underground cavities
that would be
more widely distributed.
Here is a timeline of events.
The ABC news reports mentioned here
are those that are known
to the author of this critique.
There may well be other ABC reports
that the author is not aware of.
This detailed timeline of events
and its embedded commentary
take up a lot of space.
They have been included here
to show
the conclusive evidence
for this example of
scientific misinformation.
Unless readers wish to read
all the details,
readers who
would prefer to save time
can easily skip this section.
A condensed version
of this section
can be viewed
in the "Timeline Summary"
that follows this section.
On 29 April 2014
the ABC website published
an article titled
"What causes sinkholes? - Ask an Expert (ABC Science)".
This was an accurate and informative
summary of how sinkholes
form in areas of limestone rock.
It did not mention any other
causes of sinkholes,
of which there are some.
The article appears to have been written by
two ABC journalists
after they had interviewed
two geoscientists.
The beach collapse
at Inskip Point
began late in the evening
on Saturday 26 September 2015.
It can be speculated that,
when the beach collapse at Inskip Point
initially became known to the ABC,
staff at the ABC may have been told
by members of the public
that it was a sinkhole.
Alternatively,
it can be speculated that maybe
ABC staff looked into their records
and found the 2014 ABC article
about sinkholes
and thought "bingo".
On Sunday 27 September 2015 at 5:25am
the ABC website
reported that
"A major sinkhole has swallowed vehicles
at Inskip Point in Queensland."
The report also mentioned that
"geotechnical engineers"
would be approached
by a government organisation
to provide an assessment of the site.
Perhaps influenced by the term
"geotechnical engineers",
ABC staff appear to have
decided that an engineer's skills
would be more appropriate
than a geologist's skills
to guide the
ABC's reporting.
In a report about the Inskip "sinkhole"
on the ABC TV evening news program
on Sunday 27 September 2015
the news announcer
stated that
" ..... a major sinkhole swallowed vehicles ..... at Inskip Point .....".
An engineer
from "Engineers Australia"
appeared briefly on camera
at a location that
bore no resemblance
to Inskip Point.
The ABC news announcer stated that
the engineer
had said that
"the region has a history of sinkholes,
caused by cavities
coming to the surface".
So, as at 27 September,
the ABC's go-to expert
was talking
about cavities
and sinkholes
in the region,
with no mention
of beach collapses.
In reality,
Inskip Point has no history
of cavities or sinkholes.
It does have a history
of beach collapses.
On Monday 28 September 2015,
on ABC Radio National Breakfast,
the engineer was interviewed
at length in Brisbane.
She was introduced as
a geotechnical engineer.
The ABC presenter said that
the engineer had not yet
visited Inskip Point
but planned to visit there
later in the week.
Different geotechnical experts
clearly had contrasting priorities.
Inskip Point is only
a few hours drive
from Brisbane.
The eventual report of
the Queensland Government's
geotechnical consultant
stated that the consultant
had visited Inskip Point
on 27 September
and on 28 September.
The presenter
asked questions about sinkholes.
The engineer talked about sinkholes
and then went on to talk
about slumps and slips.
She said
"..... we really don't know at the moment
whether this is actually a sinkhole
or a slump or a slip .....".
She talked about the processes
by which a slump can happen.
Some of her comments
were well-informed and accurate.
Overall, she does appear
to have thought that
it could be some sort of slump,
while keeping her options open.
There was some discussion
about the "sinkhole"
continuing to grow.
On Monday 28 September 2015 at 11:58am
the ABC News website
reported that a
"lecturer in Earth Sciences
said the incident was not considered a sinkhole - which are
caused by rock dissolving beneath the ground.
Instead, [the lecturer] said
the phenomenon was known as a near-shore
landslide and was caused by the fast-moving current alongside Inskip Point
eating through the sand beneath the surface that occasionally collapses."
This report
was accurate
and should have put an end
to the ABC's misleading nonsense
about cavities and sinkholes.
Fat chance.
On Monday 28 September 2015 at 4:39pm
the ABC News website
reported that the engineer
from Engineers Australia,
had said
"a series of tests would be
conducted to check the area's
stability.
They [need to] do some analysis - use
some geoscientific tools to test and
see if there is a larger instability or a
larger cavity underneath that area to
know if it is going to get
any bigger or not.
There are many reasons that this
could occur, but there appears to be
elements of a slip or slump failure
here, rather than just a sinkhole-type
behaviour."
Later in the report,
the ABC's engineer
stated that
"This area has a history where
sinkholes occur regularly".
The engineer
appears to still be undecided about
whether the "sinkhole"
was caused by a cavity
or whether it was
a slump.
This is despite the previous ABC report
that had categorically
stated that it was a near-shore landslide
and not a sinkhole.
More damning for the ABC's
scientific credibility,
this latest news report
of 4:39pm
also contained a section
about real sinkholes
and what causes them,
presumably extracted
from the ABC's 2014
information sheet
about sinkholes
referred to above.
This demonstrates
that at this stage
there must have been
confusion at the ABC.
The ABC was
here reporting yet again
about real sinkholes,
even though the ABC
had reported
several hours earlier
that it wasn't a sinkhole.
Finally,
on Monday 28 September 2015 at 11:45pm
the ABC News website
reported that a
"A Queensland Government
geotechnical engineer today said that
the event may have been a "near-shore
landslide" rather than a sinkhole."
Notice that here
the government's
geotechnical engineer
has used exactly
the same terminology
that the geologist used
in the ABC report
of some twelve hours earlier,
a
"near-shore landslide".
This is evidence that
the government's
geotechnical engineer
may have got the information
from the geologist.
The Queensland Government's
geotechnical engineer
was probably not
the same person as the
ABC's geotechnical engineer,
because the ABC's engineer
had not yet
visited Inskip Point.
Here, for the first time,
two full days after the event began,
in this latest report
the ABC no longer referred to
the beach collapse
as being a "sinkhole".
Instead,
the ABC now referred to it
as a "hole".
This rather imprecise terminology
suggests that the ABC
may still
have been a bit confused,
but at least it was progress.
Five months later,
another beach collapse
occurred at Inskip Point.
In an ABC TV news program
on 1 March 2016
the news announcer
stated that there had been
another
"near-shore landslip"
at Inskip Point.
Mercifully,
this time
there was no mention
of sinkholes.
At daybreak
on 27 September 2015,
the ABC incorrectly stated
in a news report
that
"a major sinkhole"
had occurred
at Inskip Point
the previous evening.
It is not clear whether
an ABC staff member
made the error,
or whether the ABC
had been misinformed.
Late in the afternoon
of 27 September,
comments about
"sinkholes"
and
"cavities"
made by
an engineer
began to be quoted
in ABC news reports.
There was as yet no mention
of slumps.
It can be speculated that
the ABC had probably
told the engineer
that it was
a sinkhole,
so it was probably
not entirely her fault
that her comments
were about
cavities and sinkholes.
On breakfast radio
on 28 September,
there was a discussion
between the engineer
and an ABC presenter.
The engineer now indicated
that it had not yet been determined
whether it was
a sinkhole or a slump.
The engineer had not yet
visited Inskip Point.
In the middle of the day,
on 28 September,
the ABC reported that a
geologist had said that
it was not a sinkhole.
It was a
"near-shore landslide".
Late in the afternoon,
an ABC news report
again referred
to a cavity
and sinkholes.
For two days,
the ABC's reports
about the beach collapse
had contained
alarming, misleading
and irrelevant information
about sinkholes.
Near midnight,
the ABC
issued a report
about a
"near-shore landslide"
and did not
use the word
"sinkhole",
instead referring to it
as a
"hole".
Some people
might have been thinking
that if the ABC
has a department called "ABC Science"
then the ABC
must have lots
of scientific expertise.
Sorry to disappoint.
The article mentioned above titled
"What causes sinkholes? - Ask an Expert (ABC Science)",
published by the ABC website
on 29 April 2014,
had required the services of two journalists
and two external geoscientists
to produce it.
That is a lot
of resources
to produce
a lightweight summary
that is less
than two pages long.
If the ABC had any useful
inhouse geoscientific skills
then a single person could have
produced the 2014 information sheet
in a short time
without needing to employ
any external consultants.
Clearly
the ABC has little ability
to produce anything scientific
without expending
ridiculous amounts of resources
and employing
external consultants.
The ABC's news reports
about the beach collapse
quoted an independent engineer
several times.
It appears reasonable to suppose
that the ABC must have
engaged
the engineer
as an external consultant,
presumably because
the ABC lacked
relevant scientific knowledge.
The engineer
is described in the "Women in Technology WA" website
as having
"a wealth of experience
in mining, engineering, and business development,
she has excelled in roles
involving underground ventilation systems,
project management,
and technical services."
She is obviously a very experienced
and capable engineer,
and she clearly had
considerable geotechnical knowledge
from her experiences
in mining
and underground ventilation systems.
For whatever reason,
the engineer,
as reported by the ABC,
initially treated
the event
as a sinkhole.
This may not have been
entirely her fault.
It can be speculated
that the ABC had probably
instructed her
that it was
a sinkhole.
Considering the circumstances
prevailing at Inskip Point,
it can be argued that
it should have been crystal clear
to the ABC
that a geologist's skills
might have been
more relevant
for the ABC's reports
than an
engineer's skills.
If there is any doubt about this,
it was a geologist who
is reported to have been
the first to get it right,
not an engineer.
It is one thing
for the ABC
to not have a clue
about what has caused something
that has a scientific explanation,
which is possibly the normal
state of affairs,
but it is quite something else
for the ABC
to not even know which
branch of science
would be most relevant.
There must have been
many ABC staff at all levels
involved in producing
the ABC TV news report
about
"a major sinkhole",
broadcast on
Sunday 27 September 2015.
None of them
appears to have noticed
that the scientific segment
of the report was incorrect.
Following the sensationalist nature
of media reporting
of the Inskip Point beach collapse,
the Queensland Government
commissioned a
geotechnical consultant
to investigate potential risks
from similar events at Inskip Point.
The consultant's report titled
"Risks associated with nearshore
instability
Inskip Point, Qld"
is available
in either the website of the
Queensland Department of
Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation
or in the website of the
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
This article makes no attempt to
provide website links
to government departments or documents
because such links
tend to get broken easily.
Earth scientists will find the report
very interesting.
It would be well worth the effort
to search for it.
The consultant's report
includes a scientific explanation
of beach collapses
at Inskip Point
and several photographs
and diagrams.
It would be ideal
to reproduce
images of beach collapses here,
particularly aerial photos
and video clips.
However, such images
are not shown here
because of
copyright considerations.
The author's own photos
have been mislaid.
Another way to view images
related to the beach collapse
of 26 September 2015
is to search the internet
for media reports
about it.
There have been several
similar beach collapses
at Inskip Point.
Many reports about them
can be found
on the internet.
The detailed report of
the geotechnical consultant
employed by the Queensland Government
is the source
of some of the information
in this section.
Readers should
search the internet
for relevant images.
Inskip Point is a sand peninsula.
On its north side
it borders a deep channel
that connects the ocean to the
Great Sandy Strait.
Strong tidal currents
race through the channel.
This is why the sand beach at this location
slopes steeply.
The consultant's report describes
a depth of 5 m or more quite close to the
edge of the beach.
By the way,
the slope of the beach
at Inskip Point
is so steep
that on one occasion
a dolphin
briefly popped up out of the water
no more than a metre from the shore,
just beside where
the author of this critique
was walking along the shoreline.
Around the world,
much research
has been done
into flow slides.
The initial failure mechanisms
are not understood perfectly
because slides begin underwater,
invisibly and without warning.
The most likely trigger
for a collapse
seems to result from
local erosion
of the steep slope,
making the
slope even steeper.
At Inskip Point,
the erosion is caused
by strong turbulent tidal flows.
Sand has relatively little structural strength.
Sometimes,
an over-steep
submerged section of
the steep sand beach
collapses.
According to the consultant's report, it
"shears as a response to exceeding its angle of repose".
In the primary mechanism
of retrogression,
when a local collapse
of the steep face of the submerged slope
has been initiated,
sand grains
falling through the water
create a density current
which carries the grains
downwards and away,
keeping the face of the slope
steep enough
to continue collapsing.
In a secondary mechanism
of retrogression,
a sub-aerial sand scarp
with a near-vertical face
forms at the edge
of the collapse.
Blocks of sand
0.5 m to 1.0 m thick
calve off or slide
from the scarp
into the ocean.
At Inskip Point,
after a collapse
of the sand beach
has been initiated,
it steadily retrogresses
inland and
along the shoreline,
resulting in
an arc of coastline
slowly crumbling
into the ocean.
Videos of beach collapses
that have happened
during daylight hours
show a fascinating spectacle,
although maybe not so fascinating
for the hapless campers
who were obliged to witness
their possessions
disappearing into the sea.
Gradually
a less-steep submerged beach
forms beneath the scarp,
causing the
retrogressive density current
to diminish and
eventually cease.
The beach
is now once again
fundamentally stable.
The slope
of the submerged beach
below the sand scarp
at the edge of the collapse
is now no longer steep enough
for density current retrogression
to re-start.
By this stage,
the arc of the beach collapse
may be
more than 150 m long.
A
"retrogressive breach flow slide"
at Inskip Point
takes two to three hours
from initiation
until retrogression ceases.
Subsequent erosion and flattening
of the locally unstable
remnant edge
of the scarp
may cause some observers
to mistakenly think
that retrogression persists.