Sometimes you hear on the news that firefighters are battling a new “wildfire” in the Sierra Nevada foothills near Plymouth, California. That’s such a ridiculous term, “wildfire.” All fires by their nature are wild. I’ve never personally met a fire I could consider “calm.” Some people might be able to tame and control a fire like Siegfried and Roy can tame a wild tiger, but eventually things are going to go wrong. Fire is an exothermic reaction that causes a wild release of energy. A fire has no choice but to be wild so calling a fire “wild” is like calling someone a White Swedish. It’s pretty much implied that a Swedish person is a white person and while that may not always be the case, it’s so often the case that it would be considered overkill to use the term “White Swedish.” I think we can just call these “fires” and then depending on where they’re taking place you put that location in front of the word “fire” such as “forest fire” or “field fire” or “house fire.” You don’t just stick “wild” in there for convenience sake, because it’s not convenient. If you’re going to be specific, be specific the right way. “Wildfire” is a term that can just disappear and I don’t think anyone would miss it.
 |
| Fire is like an animal with rabies, obviously if they're big they're more dangerous, but a small one is nothing to take lightly. |
