Towering inferno in London

[Jim Hardie]

More than happy to.

 

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/06/22/building-regulations-red-tape-initiative-grenfell-tower/

 

Thanks for providing that but it falls short of substantiating what you wrote. Where in that report is cladding mentioned?

[Guest sibon]

What I don't understand is how can a basic rule like the cladding used must be non flammable not be made clear in the regulations as it appears is the case.

 

That depends upon your definition of flammable. For example, aluminium is flammable in certain circumstances. I'm no expert, but from what I've read, there are different classes of cladding, for different purposes. It isn't necessarily the case that cladding that burns is dangerous, that would depend upon where it was used and how it was installed.

 

I do agree though that having cladding that is as unlikely as possible to burn is the preferable option.

[melthebell]

bolds:

 

I mean was the red tape cutting specifically about coating tower blocks in flammable material? I can't imagine that it was.

no but im sure they have different types and grades, looks to me like they relaxed the rules so a lower grade can be used on all sorts of buildings?

[El Cid]

What I don't understand is how can a basic rule like the cladding used must be non flammable not be made clear in the regulations as it appears is the case.

 

They make the rules themselves, the builders.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266?SThisFB

[ECCOnoob]

What I don't understand is how can a basic rule like the cladding used must be non flammable not be made clear in the regulations as it appears is the case.

 

It may seem like a basic rule with hindsight but that's the problem with a lot of these things. The reality is that things evolve and the world changes.

 

Remember not so long ago when Asbestos based material was the wonderous new thing. Perfect fire retardancy sprayed and screwed up in all kinds of buildings all perfectly legal until someone eventually discovered its nasty affects.

 

In the late 50s and early 60s industrial workers in the steel, coal and gas industries worked in operational areas using heavy plant and unguarded machinery bare chested, wearing no safety equipment, no hearing protecton because nobody thought about the effects. It was hot and dusty and noisy but people just got on with it. Its what "men" did. To complain back then would have been seen as weak and infeminate. Could you imagine asking for some ear muffs because it was too loud in the 50s? They would have laughed you off site and called you a Nancy.

 

Now of course, only after the ever rapid increase in litigation for nasty industrial diseases such as mesothelioma, chronic obstructive pulmanory disease and noise induced deafness did the world change.

 

Back even further kids toys and our own houses were decorated with lead paints, our daily lives used to be filled with the use of solvents and CFC chemicals which are all now banned.

 

The point I am making is that sometimes, as I would strongly suspect in this case, there is no single person or organisation to blame.

 

Why the cladding was not fire retardant, I dont know. But there may have been good reason. After all, you cannot make every single little thing in the world fire retardant. Its just not practical. For the chiefs involved they may have considered the blocks to be safe at the time because most buildings are designed to keep a fire inside trapped within fire doors and walls. The chances of such fire at enough force to cause major fire up the outside may have been seen as rare to none.

 

Lets face it, most risk assessments are based on a balance of probability of something happening. It can never be an exact science no matter how much money is spent or what people do.

 

Just like the Kings Cross Fire which, following vast amounts of testing was caused by a phenomenon that nobody had ever discovered before or even the Hillsborough disaster which, irrelevant any arguments about blame, was the sole reason for a complete nationwide removal of standing kops. But for such incidents people would have carried on regardless because they would have had no reason to consider them unsafe operations whatsoever.

 

Whether or not any of that applies in this case of Grenfell is a matter for the investigators. Nobody will know fully until that is done.

Edited June 27, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3]

Thanks for providing that but it falls short of substantiating what you wrote. Where in that report is cladding mentioned?

 

In paragraph 4.

 

Thanks!

[Jim Hardie]

In paragraph 4.

 

Thanks!

 

Ah yes, construction materials traded across the EU 'such as cladding'. If you click on the link within that paragraph you will find listed every building material known to man.

I wonder why cladding was given prominence by Greenpeace.

[Bob Arctor]

Thanks for providing that but it falls short of substantiating what you wrote. Where in that report is cladding mentioned?

 

The list includes the EU’s Construction Products Regulation, which sets standards for construction materials traded across the EU such as cladding; it also puts fire safety at the heart of its ‘basic requirements for construction works’.

 

Not hard to see

 

---------- Post added 27-06-2017 at 22:33 ----------

 

Ah yes, construction materials traded across the EU 'such as cladding'. If you click on the link within that paragraph you will find listed every building material known to man.

I wonder why cladding was given prominence by Greenpeace.

 

Because it includes cladding. Which is what all the hoo-ha is about. Because it appears to be really, really important.

[I1L2T3]

Ah yes, construction materials traded across the EU 'such as cladding'. If you click on the link within that paragraph you will find listed every building material known to man.

I wonder why cladding was given prominence by Greenpeace.

 

It's just one news source carrying the info, not the only one. The Indpendent, Metro etc... carried the story.

 

Salient points to my argument are that the Tories failed to do anything in response to the Lakanal report whilst simultaneously looking to cut regulation. You cannot argue with plain facts.

[Guest sibon]

 

Because it includes cladding. Which is what all the hoo-ha is about. Because it appears to be really, really important.

 

It is important, clearly. There is the further issue of the gas pipes in the towers. There is a terrifying account in today's Guardian of the slack approach to safety from the National Grid. Link here.