I've seen these posts before. And I'm not a skeptic about the existence of drones, by the way. They may be sniffing for helium which is a tip-off for the alphas given off by fissionables.
Looking for gammas is relevant only if you are looking for fission products, which are always assumed to be the packing around a "dirty bomb." But I regard a "dirty bomb" as always being more storybook than reality. The reality is a real bomb, and why bother cloaking it with something that just creates a handling problem and facilitates detection? If you're in for an inch, you are in for a mile.
I've concluded the only rational course is to sit back and wait. Hyperventilating gets us nowhere close to the truth, and we have no way to influence any activity that may be productive. So far, the drones are pesky but not a threat. They are not in violation of any FAA laws, though they may violate government airspace (which would make it a government problem). Talk of shooting them down, at this point, is simple hot-headedness, and potentially dangerous to third parties. Would we advocate that if they were manned? I hope not. It was probably unwise to relax the drone operating regulations to permit nighttime operation.
I am reminded of the setup in Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Seas," in which the Nautilus submarine is hunted by naval ships as a dangerous beast of the seas. Ned Land, the harpooner, at one point sees a meanacing ship and tries to flag its attention to show that it is manned. He is struck down by Captain Nemo, who forbids drawing their notice. Ned complains to Professor Arronax, "But can't they see there are men in this matter?" Arronax replies, "Yes, and perhaps it is because of that."
I've seen these posts before. And I'm not a skeptic about the existence of drones, by the way. They may be sniffing for helium which is a tip-off for the alphas given off by fissionables.
Looking for gammas is relevant only if you are looking for fission products, which are always assumed to be the packing around a "dirty bomb." But I regard a "dirty bomb" as always being more storybook than reality. The reality is a real bomb, and why bother cloaking it with something that just creates a handling problem and facilitates detection? If you're in for an inch, you are in for a mile.
I've concluded the only rational course is to sit back and wait. Hyperventilating gets us nowhere close to the truth, and we have no way to influence any activity that may be productive. So far, the drones are pesky but not a threat. They are not in violation of any FAA laws, though they may violate government airspace (which would make it a government problem). Talk of shooting them down, at this point, is simple hot-headedness, and potentially dangerous to third parties. Would we advocate that if they were manned? I hope not. It was probably unwise to relax the drone operating regulations to permit nighttime operation.
I am reminded of the setup in Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Seas," in which the Nautilus submarine is hunted by naval ships as a dangerous beast of the seas. Ned Land, the harpooner, at one point sees a meanacing ship and tries to flag its attention to show that it is manned. He is struck down by Captain Nemo, who forbids drawing their notice. Ned complains to Professor Arronax, "But can't they see there are men in this matter?" Arronax replies, "Yes, and perhaps it is because of that."