SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
As the official Grenfell Tower Inquiry opened, Panorama special Grenfell: Who Is To Blame, with reporting by Richard Bilton of the BBC, offers a devastating indictment of the corporate forces responsible for the June 14, 2017 inferno that claimed 72 lives.
Grenfell Tower was covered in flammable cladding and insulation materials that had never been tested together. Bilton's investigation draws out how companies were denying their responsibility for testing, jeopardising the safety of many thousands living in social and privately-owned housing tower blocks.
Bilton accuses manufacturer Celotex of having "knowingly misled buyers" about the safety and testing history of the insulation material. The formula for the Celotex product that received the safety certificate was different and safer than the product used at Grenfell Tower.
[...] Bilton's starting point is the 2014 refurbishment--which covered Grenfell Tower in highly flammable material--as he seeks to identify those responsible. Architect Andrzej Kuszell's design had created the gaps that allowed the fire to spread. Even given the relaxation of building regulations, says Bilton, it was Kuszell's job to make his plans safe and he failed.
Lead construction company Rydon was paid £8.7 million to refurbish Grenfell Tower between 2014 and 2016, winning the contract by undercutting rival bids. Central to this was cutting costs by using cheaper materials. They failed to fill the gaps at the side of the windows, allowing the fire to spread.
Bilton states that it was Rydon's suggestion to swap non-combustible materials for cheaper, flammable, substitutes. Fire expert Arnold Tarling, describing the fire as "totally avoidable", said the company had opted to use a "highly flammable material that is also highly toxic when burned". This was "utterly wicked", he said.
As the building was to use a new combination of cladding and insulation materials, says Bilton, Rydon were legally responsible for conducting safety tests, and "we don't think they did".
[...] The cladding and insulation materials had never been tested together. The makers of both products knew they were being combined at Grenfell Tower, but did not warn of risks.
Panorama tested both the cladding and the insulation. When the cladding gets hot its plastic centre melts and burns, immediately igniting the highly flammable insulation. Bilton sums it up, "The more you look at what was on Grenfell Tower, the more horrifying it becomes."
When the programme showed footage of fire tests being conducted on the insulation material used at Grenfell, Bilton has to explain that this was the actual rate of fire spread: "It's not sped up." Later we see footage of Grenfell shot by firefighters and their shock at the rapid spread of the fire.
Professor Richard Hull, Professor of Chemistry and Fire Science at the University of Central Lancashire, notes that the fire began on the fourth floor and spread up 24 floors in just 15 minutes.
[...] The rate of fire spread was compounded by the toxic smoke released. This contained hydrogen cyanide, which is 20 times more toxic than carbon monoxide.
Previous: Towering Inferno in London; At least 12 Dead, Dozens More to Hospital
UK: All Building Cladding Samples Tested Failed Fire Safety!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @12:21PM (13 children)
What's the relevance? Were those subtenants a contributor to the speed of fire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday May 28 2018, @12:38PM (1 child)
Unlikely; if they didn't have papers, their flats wouldn't burn as fast.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/20/grenfell-tower-some-victims-may-never-be-identified-lawyer-says [theguardian.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @12:48PM
Unless their body fat/water ratio was skewed towards the first [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 28 2018, @01:19PM (4 children)
The tenants didn't care if it was wrapped in tissue paper because they aren't living there.
In the sense that material quality is on a scale not a binary, and landlords, especially illegal landlords, usually won't buy the most expensive stuff for their tenants. Of course in this example the sliding scale was unfortunately past some arbitrary fire danger level.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @02:19PM (3 children)
Many were. But even that is not relevant, as a tenant you don't have much to say about the owners/landlord's decision what to do about the property.
I hope you're aware that the Grenfell Tower was public housing, with "Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council" as the owner, and "Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation" as the landlord [wikipedia.org].
And the renovation [wikipedia.org] was contracted by KCTMO
One on top of the other: what the heck have subtenants to do with the fire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)
what the heck have subtenants to do with the fire?
About the same as the Russians have to do with Trump's victory. Just another diversion to pass blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:10PM
If it's only that, it's not that bad.
I'm more afraid they actually believe the shit they post; in which case we'd have severely intellectual-impaired people acting without supervision.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Monday May 28 2018, @06:42PM
Some were leaseholders, which gives more (or at least different) rights. There were multiple consultations on the refurbishment - doesn't mean they took any notice of what was said, but if you had "much to say" then you had the opportunity to say it.
I have seen reports that the _actual_ additional cost (at source from manufacturer) of fire resistant cladding was £5k. Probably less than the cost of the meeting to decide not to use it. How this translates to a cost difference of £2.5million at final contract is staggering, but 4 layers of subcontractors running 80% margin on materials would do it.
Bigger question for me is would it have helped? There have been various reports that many / all samples of cladding have failed actual fire testing post-grenfell, some of those must have been the more expensive "fire resistant" stuff unless the manufacturer never sold any of it.
I think there is a more fundamental issue is with this entire type of insulation+rainscreen cladding system, which is the air gap - which is inherent in the design. This will act as a chimney and spread fire upwards, burning whatever it can find, insulation, cladding or random debris. Fire will also probably be spread downwards by burning debris. This fundamentally breaches the assumptions in the original fire-safety design of the building (and in the fire brigade "stay put" advice). Where the building is a modern building (with internal fire suppression) designed to have this sort of cladding system, it is not such a problem. Nor is it a problem to leave the old building as it is. It is only retrofitting the modern cladding to old buildings that is a safety problem, IMHO.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 28 2018, @02:33PM (5 children)
Well, if the tenants are people who believe that ovens (or worse, microwave ovens) can be used to dry wet clothing more quickly, then yes, the population of morons (foreigners) are much more of a problem than the construction of the building.
I could probably get one of those outdoor wood stoves from Wal-Mart and use it to heat my apartment in the winter, doesn't mean that I wouldn't be an idiot for doing so, even if I pulled it off without burning my building down.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @02:44PM (3 children)
If the idiot poster I'm replying to would care to read, then of course there may be chances to note that the cause was a fridge which had caught fire [wikipedia.org] and perhaps we could be spared of the shit he posts.
Given the IQ of the idiot [wikipedia.org] (below 30), those chances are slim to non-existent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:11PM (2 children)
...perhaps we could be spared of the shit he posts.
You have my permission to ignore his next post, and maybe we could be spared your 'critique', as he is right on about moronic neighbors being much more dangerous than a faulty appliance, on the average. Or maybe your place has never been burned out by the asshole on the floor below falling asleep with a lit cigarette in bed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:18PM (1 child)
Just from curiosity, how many times your place has been burned down "by the asshole on the floor below"?
Does it happen frequent in your part of the world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @11:35PM
Just from curiosity, how many times your place has been burned down "by the asshole on the floor below"?
>0... Yeah, that shit still happens. If that isn't enough for you, then I shall answer with a question. How many times has your place been burned down by short circuiting appliances* and cheap flammable siding, Hmmm?
*I'll cut you some slack if you live the UK. You don't fucking need 220v!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @04:24PM
Speaking of morons... EF is pretty stupid.