Towering inferno in London

[Jim Hardie]

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.

 

As you well know it was what you wrote in post 584 that I took issue with.

 

'In fact even in the week of the Grenfell fire they were meeting to discuss removing regulation on building cladding.'

 

Anyone reading that would get the impression it was building cladding only which is far from the truth. You put the same spin on it that Greenpeace did.

[Fudbeer]

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.

 

You make some good points.

 

However unless I have it wrong the key point with flats is containing a fire within the flat and as cladding is a pretty obvious way for fire to spread from one flat to another would have thought it would have been one of the first areas to make sure clear rules apply.

[Jim Hardie]

You make some good points.

 

However unless I have it wrong the key point with flats is containing a fire within the flat and as cladding is a pretty obvious way for fire to spread from one flat to another would have thought it would have been one of the first areas to make sure clear rules apply.

 

Exactly. Part B of the building regs gives the impression that fire stopping of cavities at floors, windows and party walls is sufficient to compartmentalise the building. We don't know yet if Grenfell was adequately fire stopped (Lakanal was not) but, as I think I have said before on this thread, if the surface spread of flame characteristic of the cladding was inadequate then no amount of fire stopping of the cavity will prevent the fire from spreading. Having said that, the fire will spread much quicker if the fire stopping is absent.

[I1L2T3]

As you well know it was what you wrote in post 584 that I took issue with.

 

'In fact even in the week of the Grenfell fire they were meeting to discuss removing regulation on building cladding.'

 

Anyone reading that would get the impression it was building cladding only which is far from the truth. You put the same spin on it that Greenpeace did.

 

How do you know what they were going to discuss? And if you're honest you'll admit they weren't meeting to improve fire safety regulation, they were meeting to work out what regulation they could cut. There is zero chance that cladding systems would be safer if the recommendations of the initiative were implemented, and every chance the Lakanal report would continue to be ignored.

 

This is what happens when initiatives and policies are not joined up.

[barleycorn]

It is not only our country which have concerns.

 

German city 'will evacuate building because of Grenfell tower-style cladding'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-city-grenfell-tower-fire-cladding-evacuate-11-storey-building-wuppertal-exterior-insulation-a7810891.html

 

This is going to be a massive global problem.

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

[Jim Hardie]

How do you know what they were going to discuss? And if you're honest you'll admit they weren't meeting to improve fire safety regulation, they were meeting to work out what regulation they could cut. There is zero chance that cladding systems would be safer if the recommendations of the initiative were implemented, and every chance the Lakanal report would continue to be ignored.

 

This is what happens when initiatives and policies are not joined up.

 

The question is how do YOU know? You were the one that said they were meeting to discuss cladding.

 

I take your second point completely.

[El Cid]

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

 

In the UK building regulations are not checked by councils or Government, that would be great signing off your own repairs.

 

See Newsnight link.

[alchresearch]

Quite a nasty tit for tat battle about cladding on PMQs today with May saying that the cladding started during the Blair administration. Not sure how that excuses flammable materials.

[Jim Hardie]

Quite a nasty tit for tat battle about cladding on PMQs today with May saying that the cladding started during the Blair administration. Not sure how that excuses flammable materials.

 

It doesn't and I don't think she was seeking to. It was in retaliation to Mr Corbyn's accusation about austerity policies being responsible. As you say, tit for tat.

[Lord Rex]

Except for in the states where this type of cladding is against building codes, because of this very issue strangely enough.

I think it is quite recent their building codes outlawed this type of cladding. They most likely have many more buildings than us with similar cladding to that fitted in the Tower, which had the fire. It is a truly global problem.