As conversely do the same type of reports by of why something isn't safe / should not be done.

These too seem to be produced by "experts" with a vested interest in the topic, but from the other angle, ie prevention of something. Particularly in fields as quirky as this one as it usually results in yet more research grants, more findings, more debates....so it goes on and the money keeps coming in. First approach is always to immediately discredit data within the report to cast doubt on the whole document.

I 100% expected you take this approach because you are so entrenched in your position. But if the topic of a new airport is continually raised in the Thames estuary I can only conclude that the scientific consensus is it isn't an "identified and impossible to manage safety risk". If it was, people would have listened to the academics already and 100% abandoned the plans @:-)