I'll give two parts in response. One is from a public health perspective. Our goal is to reduce risk to as close to zero as we can. It was mentioned before that there are many other sources of noise. We have to take all of them into account. The objective should be to reduce exposure if we can. With something like airplanes, we can. We could have no more airplanes; there would be no more exposure. It's not like things that are in the environment that we're obliged to live with. We could make a choice and reduce that exposure to zero. That's my public health perspective; I think it has to be that.
The second part is in terms of the committee. Yes, you need to make recommendations. From your intervention, I get that the issue of noise sensitivity, for example, is important. Some people are more sensitive to noise than others. From a scientific perspective, the studies that have looked at that don't necessarily find that it's a major factor when you take the relationship between noise sources and the impacts on health at population level.
Of course, it's important to consider feasibility and to balance benefits and risks. I think that is where data on airplane movements, noise levels and impacts on the population is super important, so you're not relying on anecdote.
