FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Tower Cladding Latest

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

On the news this evening.

So far 60 out of 600 tower blocks across the country gave had cladding removed and tested. So far 60/60 have failed!!

This is not party political. These buildings have been "upgraded" by both Labour and Conservative councils....over a period of many years under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments.

It is, however, a national scandal....and it needs sorting now. Not the blame but the solution now falls on the shoulders of the current government. Let's hope, that in this at least, they have the full support of all parties in sorting things quickly!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hitedoveWoman
over a year ago

Croydon

Is it not about de-regulation of fire testing and cutting that awful red tape? Is it not about short changing standards on building in order to make a quick profit? Of course, in the past, very recent past .... but agreed, all must cone together to solve it. But for some people, their whole existence is to make money at the expense of others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Seems ridiculous that my workplace is safer than the flats people live in. Then in the same week as the Grenfell Tower we didn't get our fire alarm tested until two days after its scheduled test day due to resourcing issues!

We do have sprinklers and smoke detectors and three fire escapes. Over 2000 people over 8 floors.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard.. "

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amrod400Man
over a year ago

belfast

Terrible thing that happened ... but I have worked in numerous high rise the amount of services and pipework that run through each flat and is boxed in I think it make them virtually impossible to make them safe from fire all

Casings aren't backed by fireboard and the amount of fire collars that have been bust off due to years of renovation... only way to stop a fire is to remove one element of the fire triangle and that will never happen

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ? "

Because the poster wishes to score cheap political points?

It IS their fault, and the governments before and after. And the local authorities...of all political persuasions. That's my very point....ALL are to blame, and therefore all parties should pull together to get it sorted! It is not the time for cheap, misinformed political shots....from anyone!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Tower blocks are slums in the sky.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Whatever happens the government must pay for all refurbishment and housing of the people concerned.

The people responsible wheather council officials or contractors they must go to prison for a long time as they are murderers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ? "

because in 05 they started the cuts to fire safety within the UK fire service and they also upon implementing the RRO changed the regs..

it was the start of what we have sadly ended up with this present Government who carried on the cuts etc..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Whatever happens the government must pay for all refurbishment and housing of the people concerned.

The people responsible wheather council officials or contractors they must go to prison for a long time as they are murderers."

Murder has intentionality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ?

Because the poster wishes to score cheap political points?

It IS their fault, and the governments before and after. And the local authorities...of all political persuasions. That's my very point....ALL are to blame, and therefore all parties should pull together to get it sorted! It is not the time for cheap, misinformed political shots....from anyone!"

care to tell me where i am misinformed..?

as for 'cheap' are you so far up your own arse that you start a thread in the politics forum on an issue that has a history of proven cuts and a reduction in the service to the public which has led to deaths of Ff's and members of the public long before this present disaster and you don't expect it to be political..

and just how the fuck is it points scoring when i clearly acknowledged that its both sides at fault, fyi i have said this is above politics before but again if you don't expect it to be political in a politics forum then again your being naive..

even the 'answers' you may want to hear are in essence down to politics..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"On the news this evening.

So far 60 out of 600 tower blocks across the country gave had cladding removed and tested. So far 60/60 have failed!!

This is not party political. These buildings have been "upgraded" by both Labour and Conservative councils....over a period of many years under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments.

It is, however, a national scandal....and it needs sorting now. Not the blame but the solution now falls on the shoulders of the current government. Let's hope, that in this at least, they have the full support of all parties in sorting things quickly!"

Do you actually in your wildest imaginings think that any party will not support what is needed to sort this..?

have you not been watching the coverage and the input from those parties..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Stop with all this negativity...

Mrs May and her strong and stable government can test 100 building a day...

So they are only testing around 8 a day, why is anyone worried, it is important not to overstretch our testing services with tests on social housing when there is a much higher priority for those testing services, remember there are many private buildings owned by big business that need testing and it is the duty of government to prioritise when resources are limited and business must always come first.

What? 100% failure rate? So what? It's social housing and if we are honest it's a blight on the buy to let market...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"Whatever happens the government must pay for all refurbishment and housing of the people concerned.

The people responsible wheather council officials or contractors they must go to prison for a long time as they are murderers.

Murder has intentionality "
Typical legal argument so British,if this happened in the US they would go to prison.

Under your thinking a d*unk driver who kills a pedestrian is not a murderer,well he is simple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought d*unk drivers who kill were charged with Causing Death by Dangerous driving

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Murder has intentionality "

Actually it does not...

Murder has to be an intentional killing

OR

Be a direct result of commissioning of an another criminal act. If you are the getaway driver in a bank robbery and in escaping the scene of the crime you accidently run someone over that is not manslaughter but murder.

Therefore, if it is shown that the cladding did not meet fire regulations for a building over 5 stories in height and that the directors of the companies who manufactured and fitted it were aware of this but chose to use an inferior product in order to inflate profits then they may well be guilty of murder not just corporate manslaughter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ?

Because the poster wishes to score cheap political points?

It IS their fault, and the governments before and after. And the local authorities...of all political persuasions. That's my very point....ALL are to blame, and therefore all parties should pull together to get it sorted! It is not the time for cheap, misinformed political shots....from anyone!

care to tell me where i am misinformed..?

as for 'cheap' are you so far up your own arse that you start a thread in the politics forum on an issue that has a history of proven cuts and a reduction in the service to the public which has led to deaths of Ff's and members of the public long before this present disaster and you don't expect it to be political..

and just how the fuck is it points scoring when i clearly acknowledged that its both sides at fault, fyi i have said this is above politics before but again if you don't expect it to be political in a politics forum then again your being naive..

even the 'answers' you may want to hear are in essence down to politics..

"

upon reflection my apologies for the head up the arse line, this is very personal to me and something iv'e campaigned against and lobbied MP's over when i was in the job and after i retired..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a point of interest, none of the tower blocks run by local authorities in Scotland use the same type of cladding as used in England although some in private hands have yet to be checked.

Apparently different regulations apply in Scotland.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the news this evening.

So far 60 out of 600 tower blocks across the country gave had cladding removed and tested. So far 60/60 have failed!!

This is not party political. These buildings have been "upgraded" by both Labour and Conservative councils....over a period of many years under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments.

It is, however, a national scandal....and it needs sorting now. Not the blame but the solution now falls on the shoulders of the current government. Let's hope, that in this at least, they have the full support of all parties in sorting things quickly!

Do you actually in your wildest imaginings think that any party will not support what is needed to sort this..?

have you not been watching the coverage and the input from those parties..? "

They will only support it if they are profiting from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"On the news this evening.

So far 60 out of 600 tower blocks across the country gave had cladding removed and tested. So far 60/60 have failed!!

This is not party political. These buildings have been "upgraded" by both Labour and Conservative councils....over a period of many years under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments.

It is, however, a national scandal....and it needs sorting now. Not the blame but the solution now falls on the shoulders of the current government. Let's hope, that in this at least, they have the full support of all parties in sorting things quickly!

Do you actually in your wildest imaginings think that any party will not support what is needed to sort this..?

have you not been watching the coverage and the input from those parties..?

They will only support it if they are profiting from it. "

Not sure i agree, regardless of party politics and politician not supporting it would be crucified by the media, their political opponents and the electorate for such a stance..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"As a point of interest, none of the tower blocks run by local authorities in Scotland use the same type of cladding as used in England although some in private hands have yet to be checked.

Apparently different regulations apply in Scotland."

Apparently the type of cladding used in the UK in towers such as Grenfell has been banned since the 1980s in Germany. If they knew it was dangerous, why didn't we?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ?

Because the poster wishes to score cheap political points?

It IS their fault, and the governments before and after. And the local authorities...of all political persuasions. That's my very point....ALL are to blame, and therefore all parties should pull together to get it sorted! It is not the time for cheap, misinformed political shots....from anyone!

care to tell me where i am misinformed..?

as for 'cheap' are you so far up your own arse that you start a thread in the politics forum on an issue that has a history of proven cuts and a reduction in the service to the public which has led to deaths of Ff's and members of the public long before this present disaster and you don't expect it to be political..

and just how the fuck is it points scoring when i clearly acknowledged that its both sides at fault, fyi i have said this is above politics before but again if you don't expect it to be political in a politics forum then again your being naive..

even the 'answers' you may want to hear are in essence down to politics..

upon reflection my apologies for the head up the arse line, this is very personal to me and something iv'e campaigned against and lobbied MP's over when i was in the job and after i retired..

"

Apology accepted. I had picked up on you blaming the previous labour government...assuming it was a political shot. I was pointing out that ALL parties are to blame and ALL should support sorting it out without political wrangling.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"the most important thing now is to make the buildings safe for the residents..

but on something as big as this i think it a bit naive to expect it to not be political..

i am of the opinion and have said so on here that the issue's go back to the last Labour Government but this present Government have failed to listen after the Lakanal house recommendations and have also failed to ensure that current building regs are up to standard..

Hows it the last Labour Governments fault ?

Because the poster wishes to score cheap political points?

It IS their fault, and the governments before and after. And the local authorities...of all political persuasions. That's my very point....ALL are to blame, and therefore all parties should pull together to get it sorted! It is not the time for cheap, misinformed political shots....from anyone!

care to tell me where i am misinformed..?

as for 'cheap' are you so far up your own arse that you start a thread in the politics forum on an issue that has a history of proven cuts and a reduction in the service to the public which has led to deaths of Ff's and members of the public long before this present disaster and you don't expect it to be political..

and just how the fuck is it points scoring when i clearly acknowledged that its both sides at fault, fyi i have said this is above politics before but again if you don't expect it to be political in a politics forum then again your being naive..

even the 'answers' you may want to hear are in essence down to politics..

upon reflection my apologies for the head up the arse line, this is very personal to me and something iv'e campaigned against and lobbied MP's over when i was in the job and after i retired..

Apology accepted. I had picked up on you blaming the previous labour government...assuming it was a political shot. I was pointing out that ALL parties are to blame and ALL should support sorting it out without political wrangling."

agree..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Apparently the type of cladding used in the UK in towers such as Grenfell has been banned since the 1980s in Germany. If they knew it was dangerous, why didn't we? "

Do you really think we did not know?

The question should be are the greedy political/civil service shit or shits on the regulatory body/private industry regulated by that body roundabout has had their snouts in the trough and what is going to be named and what will be done about them...

My guess is the answers are no and nothing...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Aren't we endanger of getting a bit hysterical.

Look it was dreadful but when you weigh up how many people live in high rise buildings and how many fires there's been in them and how many have had this cladding for years and years..

Theres no such thing as an absolutely safe building, its about risk and I'd rather see a detailed report by experts on the risk before rushing into solutions.

I'd rather see a long term planning of replacing the buildings than yet another half assed solution

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a point of interest, none of the tower blocks run by local authorities in Scotland use the same type of cladding as used in England although some in private hands have yet to be checked.

Apparently different regulations apply in Scotland.

Apparently the type of cladding used in the UK in towers such as Grenfell has been banned since the 1980s in Germany. If they knew it was dangerous, why didn't we? "
.

MDF is banned in Germany.

In California you have to have gas recirculation at petrol pumps to stop you breathing in the benzine.

Asbestos is still legal in Virginia and many other countries.

Its about risk

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I still cannot understand who thought it would be a good idea to put flammable material on the outside of a inflammable concreat building

There have been regular fires in flats before but due to the nature of the building it's been contained in the flat on fire.

The fact that someone used the cheaper alternative cladding that helped the fire climb the building smashing windows as it went thus spreading to other flats

As usual all about moneybnot people unless you're well off of corse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Aren't we endanger of getting a bit hysterical.

Look it was dreadful but when you weigh up how many people live in high rise buildings and how many fires there's been in them and how many have had this cladding for years and years..

Theres no such thing as an absolutely safe building, its about risk and I'd rather see a detailed report by experts on the risk before rushing into solutions.

I'd rather see a long term planning of replacing the buildings than yet another half assed solution"

Sick boy you like most here have missed the real danger that the government are pointedly ignoring (because someone must have pointed it out to them).

The real danger is that at this moment some sick bastard or bastards who had been planning a London Bridge or MEN Arena type attack is now working on a method to quickly set residential tower block cladding on fire. but as you say there is no need to panic and rush to find an immediate solution thousands people have been living on top of one another for years in tinder boxes and only one has caught fire. So no need for urgency it's not like within a month of the Westminster Bridge/Parliament attack by a single man there was a similar attack within 2 miles of the first...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Aren't we endanger of getting a bit hysterical.

Look it was dreadful but when you weigh up how many people live in high rise buildings and how many fires there's been in them and how many have had this cladding for years and years..

Theres no such thing as an absolutely safe building, its about risk and I'd rather see a detailed report by experts on the risk before rushing into solutions.

I'd rather see a long term planning of replacing the buildings than yet another half assed solution

Sick boy you like most here have missed the real danger that the government are pointedly ignoring (because someone must have pointed it out to them).

The real danger is that at this moment some sick bastard or bastards who had been planning a London Bridge or MEN Arena type attack is now working on a method to quickly set residential tower block cladding on fire. but as you say there is no need to panic and rush to find an immediate solution thousands people have been living on top of one another for years in tinder boxes and only one has caught fire. So no need for urgency it's not like within a month of the Westminster Bridge/Parliament attack by a single man there was a similar attack within 2 miles of the first... "
.

That's a different Risk altogether though don't you think Will.

What I was actually trying to get at was that high rise buildings are endemically more risky than lower ones and I'd rather see a long term plan on replacing them (especially the older ones) than waste more money on half assed solutions to modern problems...ie there not fit for the 21 at century

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tillup4funMan
over a year ago

Wakefield

Its not just the type of cladding used that caused the problem its the air gap between building and cladding that let the fire spread so fast acting as a chimney with no fire breaks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"That's a different Risk altogether though don't you think Will.

What I was actually trying to get at was that high rise buildings are endemically more risky than lower ones and I'd rather see a long term plan on replacing them (especially the older ones) than waste more money on half assed solutions to modern problems...ie there not fit for the 21 at century"

No!

You confuse objective risk with subjective risk.

The objective risk is one of being killed by fire in a high rise building clad in a highly combustible material which allows fire to bridge the buildings designed fire breaks. The subjective risk are two fold, firstly of an accidental fire igniting the cladding and causing a catastrophic fire and secondly of a deliberate act of arson. Fact is there was virtually no risk arson prior to the Grenfell Tower fire because the risk was unknown, however the arson risk has risen exponentially since that knowledge entered the public domain.

Therefore you assertion that one incident in many years shows how low the risk is and that we should apply perspective to accessing the risk moving forward is a piece of false logic of the highest order.

The objective risk is the same while flammable cladding remains on the exterior of inhabited tower blocks.

The subjective risk is now probably beyond measure, the question is why are there not armed guards patrolling the exterior of every occupied building clad in this stuff? I suspect the answer is someone has done a quick risk/cost/benefit calculation and come to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to and more politically advantageous to be wringing ones hands and saying we need more controls on freedom of speech, communications and movement should there be an arson attack with similar results to the accidental fire at Grenfell Tower than to act quickly to negate a subjective risk and remove the objective risk.

But then I am a very cynical when it comes to politics and finance...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As was said in the radio earlier it would be more cost effects be to have a fire marshal on every floor than to move entire families out of the blocks.

And a lot better for the families who have to up sticks to god knows where in the mean time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That's a different Risk altogether though don't you think Will.

What I was actually trying to get at was that high rise buildings are endemically more risky than lower ones and I'd rather see a long term plan on replacing them (especially the older ones) than waste more money on half assed solutions to modern problems...ie there not fit for the 21 at century

No!

You confuse objective risk with subjective risk.

The objective risk is one of being killed by fire in a high rise building clad in a highly combustible material which allows fire to bridge the buildings designed fire breaks. The subjective risk are two fold, firstly of an accidental fire igniting the cladding and causing a catastrophic fire and secondly of a deliberate act of arson. Fact is there was virtually no risk arson prior to the Grenfell Tower fire because the risk was unknown, however the arson risk has risen exponentially since that knowledge entered the public domain.

Therefore you assertion that one incident in many years shows how low the risk is and that we should apply perspective to accessing the risk moving forward is a piece of false logic of the highest order.

The objective risk is the same while flammable cladding remains on the exterior of inhabited tower blocks.

The subjective risk is now probably beyond measure, the question is why are there not armed guards patrolling the exterior of every occupied building clad in this stuff? I suspect the answer is someone has done a quick risk/cost/benefit calculation and come to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to and more politically advantageous to be wringing ones hands and saying we need more controls on freedom of speech, communications and movement should there be an arson attack with similar results to the accidental fire at Grenfell Tower than to act quickly to negate a subjective risk and remove the objective risk.

But then I am a very cynical when it comes to politics and finance..."
.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought about myself.

How effective I don't really know myself

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought about myself.

How effective I don't really know myself"

I spent years where my primary roll was to identify and classify risks, and having done so eliminate, negate or limit those risks (as much as possible) prior to starting operations.

Unless you have experience in the field is is very difficult to appreciate the different types of risk and what is required to protect against them. The fact is most risk can be protected against if there is the will but when risk is successfully negated it goes unnoticed but the inconvenience caused by risk negation are very much appreciated and quite often circumvented for convenience or to save money.

You used to work in a nuclear power station so you should have some experience of how a 100% redundancy safety system works and how those charged with maintaining such a system resent the extra work generated by the redundant systems until they are required in earnest.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"As was said in the radio earlier it would be more cost effects be to have a fire marshal on every floor than to move entire families out of the blocks.

And a lot better for the families who have to up sticks to god knows where in the mean time "

even if that was an option some people will need to be moved out regardless of cost till the blocks are safe, the elderly, those in wheelchairs or can't walk without a stick or support and those with children..

and even then the risk of people being overcome by smoke inhalation even the wardens when exiting would negate such a plan..

there is no choice but to evacuate till the building is safe given what has happened..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Isn't it about time our fire rescue service had the equipment to tackle fires in high rise buildings and rescue people. The fire service had no means of rescuing anyone from the top floors as no ladder reaches that high.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"Isn't it about time our fire rescue service had the equipment to tackle fires in high rise buildings and rescue people. The fire service had no means of rescuing anyone from the top floors as no ladder reaches that high.

"

I'm no fire fighter.... but how? As you say ladders are not tall enough. I doubt you could rescue that many people safely from a building with fire licking up the side with a helicopter.

I would have thought the best bet would be to ensure the building doesn't burn in the first place. Question is why did it? Ie were the regulations flaunted by contractors or were checks not done, or was policy wrong.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As a point of interest, none of the tower blocks run by local authorities in Scotland use the same type of cladding as used in England although some in private hands have yet to be checked.

Apparently different regulations apply in Scotland.

Apparently the type of cladding used in the UK in towers such as Grenfell has been banned since the 1980s in Germany. If they knew it was dangerous, why didn't we? "

As far as I can see no law or regulation was broken in fitting this cladding. If all was within the laws, rules, and regulations then we have to look at how and why those regulations were implemented. There is an EU competence over this matter which is why Germany was able to implement its own regulations as Germany had its regulations in place before it was placed under the EU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Isn't it about time our fire rescue service had the equipment to tackle fires in high rise buildings and rescue people. The fire service had no means of rescuing anyone from the top floors as no ladder reaches that high.

"

People can never be rescued by ladder (or platform) from that sort of height. Regardless of the fact that the effort required to climb a ladder of that height in a fire suit wearing a BA would probably kill attempting it there is the initial problem of erecting the ladder or platform which I would say is impossible due to stability issues. As for a means of rescue for those on upper (or for that matter any floor) high rise buildings have secure fire emergency stairwells. I believe they have to have an independant open ventilation source at their top and base (reason why emergency stairwells are always cold and draughty with either a double door (airlock) entry system or a positive pressure air system in order to keep fire from penetrating the stairwell during a catastrophic fire. From what I have read not only had the tower been clad in a highly combustible material but the fire doors on the emergency stairwell had been disabled and damaged thus making the evacuation route a deathtrap.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Isn't it about time our fire rescue service had the equipment to tackle fires in high rise buildings and rescue people. The fire service had no means of rescuing anyone from the top floors as no ladder reaches that high.

"

LFB use the Bronto as one of the aerials to reach higher than what is carried on your standard fire appliance you will see out and about but there does not exist an aerial that will reach the floors that are at the top of these type of buildings..

the brigade has the kit but this was outside of any worst case, what if incident..

the guys still rescued 65 people and many were rescued by crews going in without water and in several cases Ff's putting their own face masks on to casualties..

in such incidents someone inevitably mentions helicopters but having a massive fan above any fire does not assist and is dangerous for the helicopter given the thermals etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

"

under what would be normal procedures if your flat was not involved in a fire which is totally the vast majority of such jobs you would be safe indoors and not need to be evacuating to ground floor level..

new builds will have more than one protected means of escape..

the compromising of the stairwell at Grenfell was as much to do with nature of the fire being on multiple floors and crews having to use the stairwell for fire hose as there were issue's with the rising main..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

I've heard some reports, that Camden Council were keen to evacuate their high rise flats, because LFB identified 1000 fire doors missing during their emergency inspection.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

"

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt"
.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit"

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

"
.

Its not just that, most of them are concrete and have limited life span due to the problems we didn't foresee when building them, the cladding is multi faceted but one of them was extending the life a few more decades by stopping the rain getting on the concrete in the first place.

Personally I'm still waiting for experts to tell me what went wrong in this fire

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Isn't it about time our fire rescue service had the equipment to tackle fires in high rise buildings and rescue people. The fire service had no means of rescuing anyone from the top floors as no ladder reaches that high.

"

All ladders in all countries only go so high. That why new high rises have sprinklers, fire protected escapes etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

"

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but that was my point. Someone said we need to question why we are still building taller buildings. My point was to demonstrate that we can manage the risk of taller buildings. But in the case of Grenfell we didn't for whatever reason.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

under what would be normal procedures if your flat was not involved in a fire which is totally the vast majority of such jobs you would be safe indoors and not need to be evacuating to ground floor level..

new builds will have more than one protected means of escape..

the compromising of the stairwell at Grenfell was as much to do with nature of the fire being on multiple floors and crews having to use the stairwell for fire hose as there were issue's with the rising main.. "

Two things here...

Surry,

I had not heard that the dry risers were unoperational, but that explains much.

As for your worry falcon under normal circumstances a beefy firefighter would get you to open your legs, bend down and slide their shoulder between them while taking hold of your forward arm with their closest hand and lifting you into the air (it is called a firemans lift) and then carrying you down stairs. Maybe not dignified but quite comfortable for both the lifter and liftie, and much easier to carry someone down a stairwell than down a ladder.

Also modern building usually have a number of fire lifts that can be used to evacuate those unable to make the stairwell decent. The problem is older buildings where firebreaks have been bridged and safety maintenance has been cut back as fire safety inspections have been curtailed due to the cuts over the last 7 years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but that was my point. Someone said we need to question why we are still building taller buildings. My point was to demonstrate that we can manage the risk of taller buildings. But in the case of Grenfell we didn't for whatever reason.

-Matt"

Its ok, accept we can build to the highest level of safety and have done so and will do in the scores of new buildings proposed in the capital alone..

social housing historically has been at the lower end of the financial scale although i now think there will rightly so need to be a total overall review of all high rise buildings as regards fire safety and what can be used that eliminates any loopholes..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *funtimes.Man
over a year ago

Preston

1984 Documentary about Grenfell being a risk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upViHb8z4wY

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Murder has intentionality

Actually it does not...

Murder has to be an intentional killing

OR

Be a direct result of commissioning of an another criminal act. If you are the getaway driver in a bank robbery and in escaping the scene of the crime you accidently run someone over that is not manslaughter but murder.

Therefore, if it is shown that the cladding did not meet fire regulations for a building over 5 stories in height and that the directors of the companies who manufactured and fitted it were aware of this but chose to use an inferior product in order to inflate profits then they may well be guilty of murder not just corporate manslaughter. "

It's doubtful that is the case... These things tend to have a little bit of everybody involved and a lot of people just going with the flow of an inept culture (in council/construction whatever) ... Hard to call it murder

I agree its shit

Unless you can point dire try to someone going... "fire safety fuck that... I Want to cheat to make more profit"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

under what would be normal procedures if your flat was not involved in a fire which is totally the vast majority of such jobs you would be safe indoors and not need to be evacuating to ground floor level..

new builds will have more than one protected means of escape..

the compromising of the stairwell at Grenfell was as much to do with nature of the fire being on multiple floors and crews having to use the stairwell for fire hose as there were issue's with the rising main..

Two things here...

Surry,

I had not heard that the dry risers were unoperational, but that explains much.

As for your worry falcon under normal circumstances a beefy firefighter would get you to open your legs, bend down and slide their shoulder between them while taking hold of your forward arm with their closest hand and lifting you into the air (it is called a firemans lift) and then carrying you down stairs. Maybe not dignified but quite comfortable for both the lifter and liftie, and much easier to carry someone down a stairwell than down a ladder.

Also modern building usually have a number of fire lifts that can be used to evacuate those unable to make the stairwell decent. The problem is older buildings where firebreaks have been bridged and safety maintenance has been cut back as fire safety inspections have been curtailed due to the cuts over the last 7 years."

the riser was 'compromised' at the 13th floor level according to guys at the job..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but that was my point. Someone said we need to question why we are still building taller buildings. My point was to demonstrate that we can manage the risk of taller buildings. But in the case of Grenfell we didn't for whatever reason.

-Matt"
tall buildings I don't have a problem with however there multi billion pound buildings.

Social housing will unfortunately have a limited cost, part of the reason we built concrete tower blocks in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but that was my point. Someone said we need to question why we are still building taller buildings. My point was to demonstrate that we can manage the risk of taller buildings. But in the case of Grenfell we didn't for whatever reason.

-Matt

Its ok, accept we can build to the highest level of safety and have done so and will do in the scores of new buildings proposed in the capital alone..

social housing historically has been at the lower end of the financial scale although i now think there will rightly so need to be a total overall review of all high rise buildings as regards fire safety and what can be used that eliminates any loopholes.. "

As I understand it, reviews WERE done. They just were not acted upon.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"the riser was 'compromised' at the 13th floor level according to guys at the job.."

Thats a lot of 4 or 6 in hose to lug up 13 to 24 floors! (Better than having to run hose from the ground all the way I suppose.) No wonder those guys looked so knackered as they sat leaning against the building in full BA kit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Still begs the question why taller buildings are being constructed. There should be an investigation into the standard of the stairwell then. Personally I'd be unable to walk down 23 floors due to knee and foot problems.

The idea should be that a single fire would stay contained to that flat. Hence why thebadvice is to stay put and not try to evacuate unless the fire is in your own flat. Clearly that approach didn't work in that case as the building did not contain the fire as it should have.

The Butj Kahlif is 163 floors, nearly 7 times taller than Grenfell's 24 floors. I think we are OK at building tall buildings

and keeping them safe in theory. I guess what happens in practice with the pressures of cost savings etc may be different.

-Matt.

No high rise building is perfectly safe, those three towers in New York proved that.

Besides that the tower blocks we have and the kahlif have very little in common except they go up quite a bit

agreed, in comparison as regards fire safety the 2 are chalk and cheese..

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but that was my point. Someone said we need to question why we are still building taller buildings. My point was to demonstrate that we can manage the risk of taller buildings. But in the case of Grenfell we didn't for whatever reason.

-Matt

Its ok, accept we can build to the highest level of safety and have done so and will do in the scores of new buildings proposed in the capital alone..

social housing historically has been at the lower end of the financial scale although i now think there will rightly so need to be a total overall review of all high rise buildings as regards fire safety and what can be used that eliminates any loopholes..

As I understand it, reviews WERE done. They just were not acted upon.

-Matt"

because at the time when it was only small numbers of members of the public and Ff's it was deemed 'acceptable' and not worth spending the money..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"the riser was 'compromised' at the 13th floor level according to guys at the job..

Thats a lot of 4 or 6 in hose to lug up 13 to 24 floors! (Better than having to run hose from the ground all the way I suppose.) No wonder those guys looked so knackered as they sat leaning against the building in full BA kit."

some went in 3 times and still wanted to enter again but were on their straps and dehydrated so were stopped and rightly so..

several account's of guys giving their face masks to casualties on the way down who then needed oxygen intervention themselves..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"It's doubtful that is the case... These things tend to have a little bit of everybody involved and a lot of people just going with the flow of an inept culture (in council/construction whatever) ... Hard to call it murder

I agree its shit

Unless you can point dire try to someone going... "fire safety fuck that... I Want to cheat to make more profit" "

I'm sure you are correct, the CPS will find reasons why it is not in the public interest to prosecute any of those who are really responsible for this. Maybe some minor contractor or subcontractor will be offered up as a sacrificial goat and an insurance company may take a minor hit (that it will pass on to us). The when the fuss dies down the funktuary tasked with updating the safety rules will quietly drop the more expensive or ornery new regulations before resigning to take up a lucrative consulting post in the private sector.

And so the gravy train rolls on...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's doubtful that is the case... These things tend to have a little bit of everybody involved and a lot of people just going with the flow of an inept culture (in council/construction whatever) ... Hard to call it murder

I agree its shit

Unless you can point dire try to someone going... "fire safety fuck that... I Want to cheat to make more profit"

I'm sure you are correct, the CPS will find reasons why it is not in the public interest to prosecute any of those who are really responsible for this. Maybe some minor contractor or subcontractor will be offered up as a sacrificial goat and an insurance company may take a minor hit (that it will pass on to us). The when the fuss dies down the funktuary tasked with updating the safety rules will quietly drop the more expensive or ornery new regulations before resigning to take up a lucrative consulting post in the private sector.

And so the gravy train rolls on... "
.

Well seen as how we've never imprisoned anybody for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...

No CEOs from the banks for collapsing everything.

No paedo priests or politicans...

The one thing about power and money is they all look after one another.

My guess is some poor bum will take the limited wrap like you say with some promise of rewards when they get released

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The sad thing is as a country we always go for the cheap option and not the best option. However, the cheap option often costs more in the long run. Will we ever learn?

Fact as opposed to politics!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why aluminium cladding. I can't really understand why anyone would want to actually want to clad a building in a material that in right conditions burns like a blow torch when mixed with iron oxide (rust). Aluminium is used in fireworks. It produces what is called the thermite reaction. You can weld with it. Walter White used it to blow up all those baddies in that episode where he did that.

Aluminium was tried in the mining industry in the 20s and 30s as a wonder metal. Cheap and light but produced very hot sparks when mixed with rusty iron. result terrible explosions and 100s of deaths.

Somebody needs to go down for this as ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire.

Worth a read

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *homasP80Man
over a year ago

Linwood


"On the news this evening.

So far 60 out of 600 tower blocks across the country gave had cladding removed and tested. So far 60/60 have failed!!

This is not party political. These buildings have been "upgraded" by both Labour and Conservative councils....over a period of many years under Labour, coalition and Conservative governments.

It is, however, a national scandal....and it needs sorting now. Not the blame but the solution now falls on the shoulders of the current government. Let's hope, that in this at least, they have the full support of all parties in sorting things quickly!"

I think it's absolutely shocking, some "upgrade"

Yea, lets put this cheaper flammable cladding on these high flats.

Bet it wouldn't have been cheaper cladding if it was for SAY - Buckingham palace, nope probably bomb/thermic resistant up to 10,000C

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I happened to see on the news panels being removed for testing and behind the panels was 150mm kingspan insulation sheets, these aren't flammable... But.

They do produce flammable gases like hydrogen when melted or thermally decomposed.

Like I said in the beginning I'm waiting for the report to see exactly what happend

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And that I should say is completely septate from the cladding issue

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We use kingspam all the time in construction more often i use celotex.

Also thinsulex which is like a blanket.It meets building standards. My whole house i built 3 years ago has it everywhere.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We use kingspam all the time in construction more often i use celotex.

Also thinsulex which is like a blanket.It meets building standards. My whole house i built 3 years ago has it everywhere.

"
.

I just happend to notice it behind the panels on the news and I've also noticed it's not used on every building, some use rockwool battens

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We use kingspam all the time in construction more often i use celotex.

Also thinsulex which is like a blanket.It meets building standards. My whole house i built 3 years ago has it everywhere.

.

I just happend to notice it behind the panels on the news and I've also noticed it's not used on every building, some use rockwool battens"
Rockwool is cheaper and only used on certain areas doesnt have the same thermal qualities as celotex or kingspan. All new cavity walls have celotex in between.All loft conversations have celotex between rafters and then thinsulex over or another layer of celotex. To achieve the required "U" values.It will burn as ive seen the off cuts being burnt on jobs.Its not quick to ignite it melts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rockwool is more expensive than PIR

The PIR core does give off hydrogen cyanide gases but it is quite low and would not be lethal in ventilated areas

However I would not like to speculate regarding what happened at the tower

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Rockwool is more expensive than PIR

The PIR core does give off hydrogen cyanide gases but it is quite low and would not be lethal in ventilated areas

However I would not like to speculate regarding what happened at the tower"
.

No I was actually talking about the insulation behind the panels.. I was sat watching the news as they removed the panel and in the gap was 150mm kingspan sheets

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Rockwool is more expensive than PIR

The PIR core does give off hydrogen cyanide gases but it is quite low and would not be lethal in ventilated areas

However I would not like to speculate regarding what happened at the tower"
Rockwool is cheaper than kingspan or celotex You have to also factor in fitting as well as unit cost.Google it. I fit it all the time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Rockwool is more expensive than PIR

The PIR core does give off hydrogen cyanide gases but it is quite low and would not be lethal in ventilated areas

However I would not like to speculate regarding what happened at the tower Rockwool is cheaper than kingspan or celotex You have to also factor in fitting as well as unit cost.Google it. I fit it all the time."

Are you talking in slab form or just as mineral wool rolls

Celotex 150mm sheets are about £45 each

The equivelant rockwool is way more expensive

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What I was saying is that if you check with kingspan specs, it states that it gives off hydrogen gas as well as others when melted through fire or thermal decomposition?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tower-blocks-salford-cladding-stripped-13239136.amp#ampshare.

I found picture third one down.

This is what I saw on the news and I'm talking about.. kingspan insulation boards in-between the panels and the original exterior

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tower-blocks-salford-cladding-stripped-13239136#ampshare=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tower-blocks-salford-cladding-stripped-13239136

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Where as if you look on lots of other pictures there using rockwool cavity batts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rockwool is non flammable and gives off very little toxic fumes

PIR foam is fire retardant only and does give off hydrogen cyanide fumes

If it had been fitted as a composite panel ie with a metal facing both sides it would have withstood the fire a lot longer and given off a lot less in toxic fumes

However as I said before PIR celotex boards are a cheaper option than rockwool

But they do conform to BRE

Well done for negotiating kingspans website esoecialky the data specs it is notoriously hard to navigate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

I feel like I'm on s parallel universe here! But will know where to come if I ever need expert advice on cladding and building regs!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Why aluminium cladding. I can't really understand why anyone would want to actually want to clad a building in a material that in right conditions burns like a blow torch when mixed with iron oxide (rust). Aluminium is used in fireworks. It produces what is called the thermite reaction. You can weld with it. Walter White used it to blow up all those baddies in that episode where he did that.

Aluminium was tried in the mining industry in the 20s and 30s as a wonder metal. Cheap and light but produced very hot sparks when mixed with rusty iron. result terrible explosions and 100s of deaths.

Somebody needs to go down for this as ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law."

LoL... Forget your quoted uses...

Thermite is solid rocket fuel. It was the stuff in the Shuttles solid rocket boosters, it is the fuel in the majority of SAM, AAM and SSM systems and probably the fuel used in Trident missiles (I don't know this just an educated guess). There is an extremely high probability that it was a mix of molten aluminium and steel that burned through the floors of the WTC and allowed molten aluminium to come in contact with enough water to cause a large enough explosion to bring down the two blocks. And yes, if enough molten aluminium comes in contact with water it explodes with great force!

Here is one example of it going bang in Japan:

https://youtu.be/uf-V6WylksM

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm see your aluminium plant and raise you an actual rocket fuel plant.

https://youtu.be/_KuGizBjDXo

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"I'm see your aluminium plant and raise you an actual rocket fuel plant.

https://youtu.be/_KuGizBjDXo "

Yep, when Thermite goes it really goes...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Kabooooom

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why aluminium cladding. I can't really understand why anyone would want to actually want to clad a building in a material that in right conditions burns like a blow torch when mixed with iron oxide (rust). Aluminium is used in fireworks. It produces what is called the thermite reaction. You can weld with it. Walter White used it to blow up all those baddies in that episode where he did that.

Aluminium was tried in the mining industry in the 20s and 30s as a wonder metal. Cheap and light but produced very hot sparks when mixed with rusty iron. result terrible explosions and 100s of deaths.

Somebody needs to go down for this as ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law."

This sounds a bit "dihydrogen monoxide".

Let's put it another way: Aluminium is so safe millions (if not billions) sit in a tube made of it, partially fill it with a highly flammable liquid. Light that liquid and use the force to go flying through the air. Not only are we crazy enough to do that,it also happens to the safest form of transport!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

95 tests over 33 councils all fail...

Class 0 reclassified as class 3...

But government only name 20 of 33 councils...

I wonder why? Could it be that in 13 (or more) buildings there are identified potential suicide bombers and someone is waking up to a 'real and immediate threat'?

I really should not be musing so publicly, but at times I believe it is required...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Let's put it another way: Aluminium is so safe millions (if not billions) sit in a tube made of it, partially fill it with a highly flammable liquid."

Really?

Let me put it another way...

O2 is the most basic requirement for continued human life we all breath it, without it we would all be dead in less than 10 minutes. But it is also the most basic requirement for fire to exist...

Now would you like to expand on your post, or would you stipulate that aluminium giveth but it also taketh away. The question is one of uses and in some places it is not appropriate especially when mixed with other materials.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

if the insulation met building regs, which we must assume it did then who is going to take the blame ? Bet it wont be the government who passed them or the councils who enforced the rules, it will be some private person who goes to clink for obeying the rules and standards at the time, the buck will get passed so fast it will make you dizzy. Or is there any blame, was it just a terrible unforeseen accident, who could have foreseen an occassion where a fire would breach the outside of a concrete tower block with such ferocity that it would breach its fire retardant properties, after all vitually all new houses have this insulation in the cavity are we going to say that they are all fire traps.

It is easy to be wise in hindsight, the important thing is that no more lives are lost

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why aluminium cladding. I can't really understand why anyone would want to actually want to clad a building in a material that in right conditions burns like a blow torch when mixed with iron oxide (rust). Aluminium is used in fireworks. It produces what is called the thermite reaction. You can weld with it. Walter White used it to blow up all those baddies in that episode where he did that.

Aluminium was tried in the mining industry in the 20s and 30s as a wonder metal. Cheap and light but produced very hot sparks when mixed with rusty iron. result terrible explosions and 100s of deaths.

Somebody needs to go down for this as ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law.

This sounds a bit "dihydrogen monoxide".

Let's put it another way: Aluminium is so safe millions (if not billions) sit in a tube made of it, partially fill it with a highly flammable liquid. Light that liquid and use the force to go flying through the air. Not only are we crazy enough to do that,it also happens to the safest form of transport! "

It's not a rocket though mate is it. The engines are kept quite separate from the bit we sit in. It's not a rocket is it ? In the case of the tower the people were paying to live in a glorified Roman Candle. Also when planes do crash they tend to burn rather well, especially when there is 2 of them which is what happened in 1975 at tenerife airport.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Alongside what appears to be external cladding that seemed to support the building quickly becoming engulfed in fire, internal gas pipes leading into flats had not all been fitted to the standards required to withstand fire. It had been a National Grid responsibility - who are now taken over by a new owner.

I'm assuming that several things will have possibly made the fire worse than it should have been but just a few fall guys will have the buck passed to them. And corporations will have health and safety rulings against them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top