lol I got the same from a colleague: "You're so smart to be wearing a mask. We're all going to get sick. This is a superspreader event."

Thanks, I guess?

Paging @samlmontano.bsky.social

It's managed to transpose the 38µg/m³ into thinking 38 is the AQI, which it's not... nor is it even the index we'd use here (which is the AQHI, or Air Quality Health Index).

But, sure, the dumb statistical scraper bot is happy to conjure up misinformation and then highlight it to mislead people.

What a classic. And his son went on to be a prolific writer about tragedy fires.

Looking forward to seeing you there and commiserating. En route now :)

CONGRATULATIONS - I'm so thrilled for you!!

**Taps sign**

It's still 'during COVID'.

USAID ?does/did? have a great wildfire program, but focused on other regions, not Canada. Canada/US partnerships are through other mechanisms (e.g., compacts, CIFFC, etc). Lots of tough questions to ask about how changes in US policy affect fire cooperation, but USAID impacts primarily elsewhere.

Anyways, just wanted to highlight this article for doing a good job at presenting this. I think maybe @hspray.bsky.social is the journalist (maybe?) so kudos! And since CBC doesn't have a Bluesky presence, also want to highlight her good work to @hannahhoag.bsky.social and other awesome folks. (8/8)

This matters because the public needs to critically evaluate different claims, like when a politician takes a shot by implying "the fires/outcomes are worse because they didn't call in the forces." That's often presented without context, so I'm really grateful it's contextualized here. (7/n)

Maybe we as a society want to change that. Maybe we think the military should be in the business of firefighting (many in the Canadian Forces disagree, BTW!).

But, it doesn't serve robust debate when we perpetuate misunderstandings (e.g., soldiers can be dumped in as firefighters). (6/n)

What this article does well is explain /why/ the military hasn't been called before diving into that debate: it's because the military has particular strengths (e.g., heavy lift aircraft for evacuations, able-bodied people for mop-up) and weaknesses (basically zero expert wildfire fighters). (5/n)

But, when this is covered by journalists, it can often be treated as though it's a settled question: "well, we have a military that could help, and they haven't been called in, so why is that?"

The problem is it's not settled: whether the military would actually "help" is a debate, not a truth.

This is actually quite a live debate in the emergency management world - lots of forums & publications debating it! People hold passionately different views (e.g., "the forces are well equipped with strong young people" vs "they lack training or expertise for this specific work"). (3/n)

One trope is this: wildfires are bad, so we should call in the military!

You hear this a lot from different advocates, politicians, and community members. It's based on a broader assumption that the military is inherently and objectively a catch-all for any disaster response.

(2/n)