Death toll in London tower fire rises to 30, figure expected to rise

[Grouse]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40366646

 

I thought the cladding backing was PE?

 

was there an additional insulation layer?

 

Otherwise I don't understand the HCN issue?

 

Maybe other plastics such as window frames.

 

Combustion products must be considered when approving building materials.

 

BTW, fire stops in ducts are the exception rather than the rule in land of smiles in my experience 

[ddavidovsky]

The media are using the opportunity to try to bring down the government. It's cynical, exploitative and counterproductive.

Can't blame the council, Certainly can't blame the government - they can't be expected to micro-manage everything. They appoint experts to do that, and if the experts screw up, the experts should go.

 

The experts are the fire department, who inspect buildings specifically to advise on fire safety, and should understand about the flammability of materials in inferno conditions.

They should know all about this. They don't.

They should have advised and warned about it. They didn't.

They should have explained why they don't and didn't. They haven't.

[MiKT]

44 minutes ago, Grouse said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40366646

 

I thought the cladding backing was PE?

 

was there an additional insulation layer?

 

Otherwise I don't understand the HCN issue?

 

Maybe other plastics such as window frames.

 

Combustion products must be considered when approving building materials.

 

BTW, fire stops in ducts are the exception rather than the rule in land of smiles in my experience 

 

Yes, I fear you are more than right, I deal with railways where we follow the NFPA 130 regs. But I have never seen any fire stopping in a condo.

[MiKT]

26 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

The media are using the opportunity to try to bring down the government. It's cynical, exploitative and counterproductive.

Can't blame the council, Certainly can't blame the government - they can't be expected to micro-manage everything. They appoint experts to do that, and if the experts screw up, the experts should go.

 

The experts are the fire department, who inspect buildings specifically to advise on fire safety, and should understand about the flammability of materials in inferno conditions.

They should know all about this. They don't.

They should have advised and warned about it. They didn't.

They should have explained why they don't and didn't. They haven't.

The UK Fire Brigade and UK fire regulations are some of the best in the world, but its clear that the way the materials were used caused the problem which baffled the fire experts.

 

If you follow the links in my previous email its very clear that anybody involved in fire detection and prevention in high rise buildings must be fully aware of the problems of cladding fires and this is validated by the changes to the standards made after the 1991 fire in the UK.

 

Its all very well having standards, and if they were reviewing the building contractors specs, those responsible for approving the contractors proposed designs  would have seen that the cladding material met the stated fire rating standard, but if you read the manufactures comments in my previous email, its also clear that the material as not used as expected, which makes a mockery of the standards and the approval and inspection processes.

 

I also concur about the quality of the double glazed PCV windows. Were all the materials and finishes suitably fire rated for use in a high rise building? I personally think this will also come out as an issue later. 

 

For me very clearly the majority of the blame must lay with the architects and contractors who designed and installed such a crappy system that it allowed such a large spread of flame in such a short time; and, although to a certain extent the fire brigade must also take some responsibility, they have severe manpower problems caused by the government cutting the budgets and closing many fire stations. 

 

Also some of the blame must devolve on the general Architectural and Civil Engineering communities that don't follow proper Assurance procedures to ensure safe buildings.

 

This may be changing in the UK if the BIM standards are made mandatory as they should make it easier to find glitches in the designs and see if they really meet the standards as they should be applied.  

 

Its absolutely no consolation to the victims who died so horribly or to  their families who will have to dwell on the way their loved ones died because of (alleged) corruption and (alleged) blatant cost cutting and the use of (alleged) unsuitable materials, installed in (alleged) unsuitable ways in accordance with (alleged) unsuitable designs, but we can only hope that lessons really will be learned and measures put into place to ensure this is not likely to happen again.

 

Hopefully some of those lessons will also trickle down to Thailand as recent high rise fires here don't exactly inspire confidence in building fire safety. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

On 6/20/2017 at 1:08 PM, dick dasterdly said:

I agree.  It seems likely that inferior (but cheaper) materials were allowed in the UK .

 

There are so many questions to be answered and for some reason this is going to take "years".. ...

 

Why should it take years?  Those involved have more important issues to deal with???

 

On 6/20/2017 at 3:56 PM, 7by7 said:

 It will take 'years' because all the factors need thorough investigation. jumping to conclusions will be of no help or benefit to anyone.

 

But in the mean time the fire safety of all blocks in the UK needs reassessing, with the appropriate changes made as a matter of urgency.

It takes years to investigate properly???

 

I ask again - why?

[MiKT]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

It takes years to investigate properly???

 

I ask again - why?

 

Why? Why?

 

Simply money, simply money, money, money.

 

Money saved by lowest cost contractors, money saved in unsuitable materials, money siphoned off for holidays in Benidorm, not to mention the cost in the stationary cupboard accounts for so many brown envelopes.

 

Plus, the UK government has cut policing and fire brigade and many other services so they cannot do the work they are supposed to keep people safe.

 

With hundreds of UK tower blocks with similar cladding (and at least 6 with the identical cladding to Grenfell) the local councils have at least started to implement actions to strip it off asap.

 

The cost of removing (and presumably replacing the cladding) will be huge, so the costs saved on installing cheapo cladding will be insignificant.

 

But as is clear from recent news video's the councils were very surprised to find that the fire-proof cladding they thought they had paid for is not fire proof. Must be some massive court cases coming up. Lots of money to spend on lawyers instead of competent engineers/fireman/etc.........as usual.

 

I really hope some people end up in clink for this fiasco.