Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
Munter said:
How do you do a destructive test on every panel before fitting it?
From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
Shouldn't the question be did they meet the regs at the time they were fixed to the building?From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
Munter said:
Kermit power said:
Munter said:
Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.
Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
Nope. In most other countries, they say "these panels should only be used on buildings of two floors or lower". Here, they say words to the effect of "check local building regulations".Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
There is no onus on manufacturers to make all their panels fire resistant. There is onus on the people who write building regs to make sure they're fit for purpose, and on developers to make sure they comply with those regs.
From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
Globs said:
Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.
I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.
It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.
I don't believe firemen are necessarily busier or more tired.I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.
It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.
The sheer volume and scale of what they have to attend to has shifted massively in the last couple of decades. In doing their work on fire safety they have improved things no end. As have various elements of legislation and building standards etc.
We still don't have the full facts on this particular circumstance but it looks like it could well be a perfect storm of multiple things. I'm seriously doubtful that having a bunch of firemen plodding round there every month would have made any difference whatsoever.
(From a purely statistical point of view, that there has (thankfully) only been one incident like this despite the number of properties apparently kitted out this way might suggest that the issue is more complicated than just "the cladding is inherently dangerous". Caution is being taken which is almost certainly the right approach. But hopefully the investigators will be given time to do their jobs and the outcome of their findings will be respected...even if it doesn't match what has been in the press to date).
PurpleMoonlight said:
Munter said:
How do you do a destructive test on every panel before fitting it?
From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
Shouldn't the question be did they meet the regs at the time they were fixed to the building?From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
So, McDonnell, the Labour Party is guilty of attempted murder?
(It's an absurd question, of course, just like his outrageous, absurd claim at Glastonbury).
Zod said:
The same panels are on the towers in Swiss Cottage that Camden has evacuated (a ridiculous stunt). The cladding was applied in 2006, when Labour was in government and running the Council.
So, McDonnell, the Labour Party is guilty of attempted murder?
(It's an absurd question, of course, just like his outrageous, absurd claim at Glastonbury).
Yes McDonnell's claim is absurd gun jumping. OTOH we've seen 60 towers now up & down the country, so it will be across councils of all colours & that will inevitably lead it back to budgets. It's clearly where this is heading.So, McDonnell, the Labour Party is guilty of attempted murder?
(It's an absurd question, of course, just like his outrageous, absurd claim at Glastonbury).
Eddie Strohacker said:
Zod said:
The same panels are on the towers in Swiss Cottage that Camden has evacuated (a ridiculous stunt). The cladding was applied in 2006, when Labour was in government and running the Council.
So, McDonnell, the Labour Party is guilty of attempted murder?
(It's an absurd question, of course, just like his outrageous, absurd claim at Glastonbury).
Yes McDonnell's claim is absurd gun jumping. OTOH we've seen 60 towers now up & down the country, so it will be across councils of all colours & that will inevitably lead it back to budgets. It's clearly where this is heading.So, McDonnell, the Labour Party is guilty of attempted murder?
(It's an absurd question, of course, just like his outrageous, absurd claim at Glastonbury).
rscott said:
You mean by improving the insulation of the buildings so they were cheaper to heat and cooler in summer? How dare they do something which might actually save the tenants money and improve their quality of life?
do you have any measurements to back that statement up ? i am not being awkward but this is mentioned often with no info to back it up. were people freezing in winter and cooking in summer pre installation of cladding ? improving the windows i would think would make the most significant difference in winter, in summer i don't see cladding making much difference in cooling the block down .wc98 said:
rscott said:
You mean by improving the insulation of the buildings so they were cheaper to heat and cooler in summer? How dare they do something which might actually save the tenants money and improve their quality of life?
do you have any measurements to back that statement up ? i am not being awkward but this is mentioned often with no info to back it up. were people freezing in winter and cooking in summer pre installation of cladding ? improving the windows i would think would make the most significant difference in winter, in summer i don't see cladding making much difference in cooling the block down .stevesuk said:
If by chance the fire had happened in one of Camden's "death trap" tower blocks, would it have been murder by the Labour council? I suspect not...
Seems everyone was using this stuff (public and private sector, and all around the UK), and Grenfell was just the unfortunate place that by chance the first major fire happened.
Not heard of any in Wales yet. Cwmbran has just completed one......Seems everyone was using this stuff (public and private sector, and all around the UK), and Grenfell was just the unfortunate place that by chance the first major fire happened.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tower...
Cwmbran was also retro fitted with a sprinkler system.
wc98 said:
do you have any measurements to back that statement up ? i am not being awkward but this is mentioned often with no info to back it up. were people freezing in winter and cooking in summer pre installation of cladding ? improving the windows i would think would make the most significant difference in winter, in summer i don't see cladding making much difference in cooling the block down .
Does he have any measurements as to whether concrete absorbs and stores heat, releasing it later and whether another material would reflect and reduce the amount of energy absorbed? This is GCSE level science surely?Oakey said:
wc98 said:
do you have any measurements to back that statement up ? i am not being awkward but this is mentioned often with no info to back it up. were people freezing in winter and cooking in summer pre installation of cladding ? improving the windows i would think would make the most significant difference in winter, in summer i don't see cladding making much difference in cooling the block down .
Does he have any measurements as to whether concrete absorbs and stores heat, releasing it later and whether another material would reflect and reduce the amount of energy absorbed? This is GCSE level science surely?Munter said:
Kermit power said:
Munter said:
Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.
Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
Nope. In most other countries, they say "these panels should only be used on buildings of two floors or lower". Here, they say words to the effect of "check local building regulations".Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
There is no onus on manufacturers to make all their panels fire resistant. There is onus on the people who write building regs to make sure they're fit for purpose, and on developers to make sure they comply with those regs.
From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.
Zod said:
This is the point of the cladding. Insulation works both ways - keeping in heat and preventing the sun from heating up the surface. Poor design, allowing vertical air channels behind cladding and use of cladding with a flammable core, but no regular firebreaks seems to have been the problem at Grenfell.
Yes, insulation does do as you say but pir, pur and other synthetic products have the effect of trapping heat in the summer once it all equalises. They don't breath or absorb. We are close to using as much energy cooling buildings as we were heating them. Solving one problem but it's creating another. Kermit power said:
Munter said:
Kermit power said:
Munter said:
Isn't the current failure with the suppliers. The ones who's panels are not up to the standard testing that's currently being carried out.
Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
Nope. In most other countries, they say "these panels should only be used on buildings of two floors or lower". Here, they say words to the effect of "check local building regulations".Everybody else specifying and inspecting them would have done the correct thing. No matter how many of them there are.
There is no onus on manufacturers to make all their panels fire resistant. There is onus on the people who write building regs to make sure they're fit for purpose, and on developers to make sure they comply with those regs.
From what was on the news yesterday: The panels do not meet the current regs. The testing being done is stated to be being done to the regs. The panels are advertised as meeting the regs they are being tested against.
Which to me means the people supplying the panels that "meet the regs" when they do not, is likely to be in a bit of trouble.
My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.
They may well be allowed to catch fire in certain conditions ( most things do) but the installation should prevent it doing more damage than it should
Kermit power said:
....
My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.
Your suggestion is that the Contractor is at fault, but don't you think you need to wait for the inquiry before coming to any such conclusion? My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.
zarjaz1991 said:
ph is sadly full of some quite wealthy people who seem quite happy to support the constant battering of the poor in order to protect and further their own already considerable wealth.
This used to extend to merely routine stuff like wages and cuts and job security, but we are now starting to see the ghastly truth....that actually, some such people see the poor as expendable, to the extent that, even when it's clear savage cost cutting and profiteering has cost 79 lives, they are STILL defending such cuts and claiming it's justified.
How is spending 10m on a block of flats savage cost cutting? This used to extend to merely routine stuff like wages and cuts and job security, but we are now starting to see the ghastly truth....that actually, some such people see the poor as expendable, to the extent that, even when it's clear savage cost cutting and profiteering has cost 79 lives, they are STILL defending such cuts and claiming it's justified.
Somebody has cocked up badly, but there was no lack of spending. Is it only poor people living in the affected flats?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff