No you don’t, that’s for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?
Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.
My brother in christ, drones are all over that paper. Have you read an academic paper before? Do you know how to follow sources in papers? Tell you what, you go find some sources of your own and we can compare. Sitting back and saying “nuh uh” ain’t gonna do it. Put up or shut up.
Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:
‘Eco-friendly’ fireworks, which do not use perchlorate
and have lower levels of heavy metals, do exist (Fan et al.
2021); the problem lies in their higher cost of manufac-
turing (Palaneeswari and Muthulakshmi 2012). The future of ‘firework’ displays may lie in the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones and visible-wavelength lasers for light shows have the benefit of being reusable, have no emissions,
and are quiet (Daukantas 2010; Zerlenga et al. 2021). Drones come with their own issues for wildlife, however, usually flying at low altitudes where there are most likely to come into contact with wildlife; a review indicated that many taxa react negatively to the presence of a drone (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2019). Even so, drone light shows are less likely to disturb animals, wild or domestic, with noise, nor do they deposit large amounts of pollutants.
The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don’t quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.
Would you have a different reading of this article?
No you don’t, that’s for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?
Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.
My brother in christ, drones are all over that paper. Have you read an academic paper before? Do you know how to follow sources in papers? Tell you what, you go find some sources of your own and we can compare. Sitting back and saying “nuh uh” ain’t gonna do it. Put up or shut up.
Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:
The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don’t quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.
Would you have a different reading of this article?
My mistake, I read the abstract too fast and too late, let me read it and get back to you.