From ABC News:
The list of high-rise apartment towers in Britain that have failed fire safety tests grew to 60, officials said Sunday, revealing the mounting challenge the government faces in the aftermath of London's Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.
All of the buildings for which external cladding samples were so far submitted failed combustibility tests, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said. As of late Sunday, that includes 60 towers from 25 different areas of the country — double the figure given a day earlier.
More from the BBC:
The Local Government Association said some councils have introduced 24-hour warden patrols to mitigate the risk before cladding is removed.
It said in a statement: "Where cladding fails the test, this will not necessarily mean moving residents from tower blocks.
"In Camden, the decision to evacuate was based on fire inspectors' concerns about a combination of other fire hazards together with the cladding."
So it looks like, far from an isolated thing, basically everyone had the bright idea to do this.
Related Stories
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @08:04AM (33 children)
My impression is, this cladding is basically hollow inside. Bolt some stadoffs to the old building facade, then bolt the cladding to the standoffs. This works for brick, very well. But, brick aren't very combustible.
In a wood frame house, the carpenter usually nails firestops between the studs. It doesn't sound like much - just a 2x4 cut to length, then toe-nailed between the studs. But, they do slow the fire from spreading.
When I read the story about this fire, it was quite clear that the cladding acted as a chimney, sucking the fire up the side of the building. Some simple lumber fire stops would have at least slowed the fire.
Yes, that lumber will ultimately become fuel for a fire, but it SLOWS the fire, by preventing the draft from sucking the fire up the walls.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 26 2017, @08:23AM (1 child)
My bet: plastic (polystyrene foam?) between two sheets (foils only?) of something structurally stronger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday June 26 2017, @09:34AM
Polyethylene: the manufacturer's product name is Reynobond PE. The manufacturer also makes a fire-retardant version filled with mineral wool: Reynobond FR. (source [theguardian.com])
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:23AM (23 children)
The UK regs call for such firestops, the UK regs also have such combustible cladding banned over 1/2 story, the UK regs also have this type banned.
This is corporate manslaughter
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 26 2017, @08:28AM (22 children)
And yet the fire safety people somehow didn't notice that the whole country is full of tower blocks that break these regulations.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Monday June 26 2017, @09:01AM (20 children)
Fire safety rarely check on what's actually going into the building. They aren't present for building works, these things were built back in the 70's and then cladded later too.
It's down to building control, but ultimately down to architectural design and the materials that ACTUALLY end up on the building.
The person who provided the plans for the initial building, or extra major works like cladding, would have specified a material. That material is either compliant with building regulations or not. If it's not compliant, the architect is at fault and liable. If the material specified wasn't used, the building contractors are liable. If it was compliant and used, but later discovered to be a problem, then you have a much more serious problem involving the review of every work ever done using that material.
The problem is that none of the above would be questioned by any "fire safety people". If the architect designed and specified correctly, they wouldn't necessarily notice. It's a complex, certified and professional job just to know how to understand the regulations and it would be the architect's job to make sure it was compliant. If the material used was different to design, they wouldn't necessarily notice. Hell, you can't check every panel as it goes in. If it all went smoothly, but wasn't fitted properly (e.g. gaps left in some places), nobody would have any idea. Buildings inspectors might only visit once, or twice, for the building of a complete house. For a block of flats, probably more, but would you think proportionally more (e.g. hundreds of times?). No.
Someone shortcut, on materials, design, on a loophole in the regulations, or in the actual fitting. And they did so on blocks of flats all over the country for decades. No amount of checks and controls could guard against that. Owners don't put millions of pounds of cladding on an existing tower block for fun, and then do a knowingly sloppy job. And it took decades for an accident to happen that showed it wasn't up to scratch.
It's just one of those things, tragic, blown out of all proportion, unlikely to be repeated exactly but certainly won't be the last towerblock fire. And all could have been solved by a simple regulation. Sprinklers on all buildings for multiple occupation. As the UK fire chief has been quoted as saying many times over the last few decades, there has never been a serious fire in a building with an operational sprinkler system.
We knew that for years, never did it because "it was expensive". The cladding was installed for other reasons than fire protection. But if we'd just drawn a line and said "from now on, sprinklers in all new tower blocks, and in ten years time sprinklers in all existing tower blocks", you'd have saved more lives than all this pontificating over what type of cladding, and it probably would have cost less.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @09:19AM (6 children)
They won't save you from a cladding fire. Nobody puts sprinklers inside the cladding, and you can't breathe when the cladding burns. Sprinkler pipes fail.
You don't need them if you don't build crap buildings. Concrete, steel, glass, brick, tile, brass... not a problem. You don't even need wooden studs. Here in the US, commercial properties tend to use steel studs. Do that.
Sprinklers and fire alarms are broken thinking. If they ever come into play, you're already fucked because you botched the building design. Save the money, spending it instead on proper materials.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @09:44AM (5 children)
Actually, I think they use aluminum studs, rather than steel. Or, that's what I've seen. Maybe it's just the area I live in? Steel may be more popular in other areas?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 26 2017, @02:06PM (2 children)
I did some googling because the concept is interesting and I don't think those exist. You can go to images.google.com and search for aluminum studs and you'll get all these pictures of galvanized steel studs sometimes from the manufacturer or distributor website which is pretty funny.
I'm not seeing the higher price in exchange for lighter weight selling very well for building construction. Thats a good tradeoff for an aircraft or maybe a boat, but not buildings.
I would imagine if you can find a way to start a fire in a brick/steel/plaster/granite house (what exactly will burn? The carpet? Wood flooring material?) then aluminum would melt too easily so it wouldn't be allowed. I know from casting aluminum at home that if you heat up a piston or whatever long before it melts it loses most of its strength and a hammer will break it into bits quite easily.
Something I have always wondered about steel studs, having never used them, is its hard to destroy wiring by pulling it thru a wooden hole unless you're really screwing something up, but I imagine the sharp edges of steel studs makes pulling cable rather difficult without destroying the insulation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @02:29PM
As always, it depends on local codes, but I expect most would forbid pulling NM cable through steel studs for precisely this reason.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kymation on Monday June 26 2017, @05:33PM
There are plastic snap-in bushings that protect the cable where it penetrates a steel stud. These are required by the National Electric Code in the USA, and probably similar codes in other countries.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 26 2017, @02:46PM (1 child)
Citation needed; I think you're just mistaken, perhaps because steel studs are so light. Steel studs are light because they're super-thin; they're not meant to support any kind of load at all, except for the drywall that's screwed to them. There's no possible reason to use aluminum for any building on land for this purpose; steel is much cheaper and probably works much better too (sheet aluminum isn't very good for screwing things into, the screws will just pull through; when you do screw things into aluminum, it's generally rather thick or a high-grade alloy).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @03:17PM
In 1991, I had a house built in Canada and for the finished basement, the contractor used aluminum studs to hang the drywall on for the interior walls. Before doing so, he asked my permission and after confirming there would be no upcharge, I agreed and he used the aluminum studs. I don't know why he wanted to use aluminum studs. Maybe he had some left over from a previous job? Anyway, they worked fine, the drywall stayed up and we had no problems.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @09:39AM (10 children)
Your post is pretty accurate, even for the US. But, there is something missing. It's also missing in many small to medium private construction jobs here. There needs to be an inspector, who answers to the paying customer. Construction jobs that I have worked on often have an "inspector" who is employed by the state, who checks the construction. If it happens to be a job funded by the state, that state inspector is VERY thorough. And, I do mean VERY thorough! If it is a private job, such as the hospital I helped to build, the state inspector is much less thorough. To highlight the difference, when I tied rebar on a bridge abutment, paid for by the state, the inspector got picky about which piece of rebar went on top of the other rebar. He had his head and hands inside of the forms, inspecting that closely. At the hospital, the state inspector just casually walked around looking at the concrete after it was poured. He seldom took any measurements, and was satisfied with just about anything that got past the superintendant.
Now, this other inspector I'm speaking of, is a separate, private contractor, who represents the paying customer. He doesn't much care about state standards, he doesn't care if the architect makes or loses money, and he doesn't give a small damn for the subcontractors working on the site. He represents the customer. This inspector is also a licensed contractor, with all the background education and experience that you would expect from the architect, engineer, and master craftsmen on the site.
This individual spends his day inspecting and testing concrete samples, double checking electrical work, plumbing and/or pipefitting, carpentry, even the landscaping. He's the guy who will prepare "punch lists" as the job proceeds. He finds some electrical circuits that aren't properly grounded, he'll write that up in a report to his employer, and a copy goes to the architect, and sometimes directly to the subcontractor responsible. If he finds materials that look substandard, he will include that in his report, and the materials are replaced, or the contract renegotiated to allow for those substandard materials. As the construction goes into it's final phases, his punch lists may include fingerprints on the finish, or even places where the grain of the wood in the finish work doesn't quite blend together.
There really needs to be a representative on site throughout the construction who represents the paying customer's interest. And, that inspector is as liable for the finished construct as any contractor on site, and almost as liable as the architect and/or engineers who designed the building.
Believe me, I've been handed punch lists for such petty little things as dirty handprints on a wall that only maintenance people will EVER see! The state inspector had already signed off, but that customer representative wasn't going to let it slide.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 26 2017, @09:50AM (8 children)
Interesting points, thanks.
Wonder if such a paying-customer's-inspector was present on these construction projects.
It would always be in the interests of whoever funded the construction, to hire such an inspector, right? Even if the building is to be sold or rented-out, the incentive for good construction quality should still be there, no?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday June 26 2017, @11:10AM (7 children)
In these cases, the paying customer is the local council, or worse, the trustee of the committee that runs the building.
For them, cheaper is *always* better. They only put the cladding on the buildings because the people who had to look at (not live in) the buildings thought they were an eye sore.
None of the money improved the buildings for the residents.
They didn't spend money because they wanted to.
So: they spend as little as they can.
Cutting corners, if it saved money, would be considered a Good Thing.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday June 26 2017, @02:54PM (6 children)
IIRC, the cladding also functioned as insulation?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @03:44PM (2 children)
That was the main reason, rather than external looks. The buildings were built decades ago, and found to be very energy wasteful, and in the interest of reducing the energy required to heat the blocks (and corresponding carbon footprint) the government had the building clad in insulation.
The government had committed itself to reducing emissions under the previous environmental agreements, and they cannot force insulating cladding on private houses and buildings. However public buildings are under their purview, so they can mandate whatever they want, doubly so as they are usually the ones paying the heating bills.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday June 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
There have been studies that say that adding external insulation on an old building is also a lot more efficient -let alone less disruptive- than putting it inside.
Since it's faster too, and doesn't shrink living space, that is the recommended retrofit method for millions of homes across Europe (unless you're in a historical district). You often get a tax break for the job.
I didn't expect high-rise external insulation to be flammable, though.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @07:27PM
> I didn't expect high-rise external insulation to be flammable, though.
And neither did I quite frankly. Hopefully we will find out who's really bright idea that was in the end.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @04:47PM (2 children)
Actually, the insulation functions as insulation and the cladding functions as cladding, and the air gap between the two functions as a chimney.
Turns out the insulation used was as flammable as the cladding (maybe more so) and also has the nice friendly effect of releasing cyanide when burned, some of the victims were treated for cyanide poisoning in hospital.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @07:29PM (1 child)
> Turns out the insulation used was as flammable as the cladding (maybe more so) and also has the nice friendly effect of releasing cyanide when burned, some of the victims were treated for cyanide poisoning in hospital.
Sounds like they couldn't have made the situation worse if they had tried deliberately :-/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:57PM
Yeah but it was cheap. Any more questions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:55PM
NOOOOH! Don't you know regulation kills business. Anything you do that gets in the way of business is going to destroy America. You better roll over because business needs your asshole to drive a cock into right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @06:42PM
You forgot: multiple stair case.
At least that was reported in Germany as being rather strange/unusual that a building this large and tall would have only one single staircase.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 27 2017, @01:23AM
Unless, of course, the "fire safety people" actually looked for these problems. Sorry, it's not that hard to find things like widespread use of flammable panels, absence of firebreaks in the cladding, insufficient escape routes, and several of the other problems present in the Grenfell building. I think there's a simple explanation for why the building didn't get properly inspected. I bet we'll find the inspectors were employed by the same government that owned the building.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @06:39PM
You seem to have missed the part where fire safety checks are no longer the responsibility of fire safety people in the UK but the law was changed that the owners are responsible to check fire safety in whichever way they feel like essentially...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Monday June 26 2017, @09:57AM (2 children)
The cladding consisted of "aluminium sheets with a flammable polyethylene core."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors [theguardian.com]
Polyethylene, also known as polythene, is a long-chain hydrocarbon.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene [wikipedia.org]
Paraffin is used to make candles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @12:55PM (1 child)
I'm visualizing something with a substantial exterior sheet of aluminum, but the interior is probably not much more than foil. http://omnisexteriors.com/roofing-and-cladding/ [omnisexteriors.com] I'm browsing a little here, trying to find specs on the cladding. http://omnisexteriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OmnisMetalRoofingCladding_CladScreen-Design-Guide.pdf [omnisexteriors.com]
If I'm seeing that correctly, the standoffs are nailed to the building, the insulation is affixed to the standoffs, and then the exterior aluminum sheets are affixed to the standoffs, an inch or more away from the insulation. That is one type of cladding, anyway. This may not be the exact product sold to Grenfell Towers - I just chose one of their products at random.
Datasheet on the Lokfacade product here, less informative than the first PDF I found - chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://omnisexteriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LokFacade-Datasheet.pdf
As for polyethelene, it is almost the most flammable plastic that we work with at work. When we develop a leak at the nozzle, the material develops what we call a hoghead. Poly is less likely to leak than some of the other plastics, because it doesn't require a lot of pressure to mold. But, when it does leak, it's easy to remove from the machine. Wave a propane torch at it, it catches fire, and melts easily. Drip, drip, and slip it off. ABS is probably our most fire resistant, followed by nylon. (Actually glass-filled nylon.)
Of course, we don't use a lot of polyeth, or polypro, because they aren't strong enough for most of our products.
Poly-anything is unfit for insulation, IMO.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 26 2017, @02:25PM
Its one of those two countries separated by a common language things. I live in the colonies and have this cladding on my house. Aluminum siding with a thin insulation layer. Theoretically the foam is fireproof. I live far enough east that excessive rain is more likely to be a problem than desert wildfires so I'm much better off than folks with the more modern all vinyl siding.
I also have experience with fire proof foam sealant as relates to wire installation in data centers and stuff. You pays your money and takes your chances. No fire prevention means its a smokey candle flame. "residential grade fire block" (note, not stop, block) will block smoke but direct flame will ignite it, but the smoke although toxic isn't as bad as it could be. The "commercial grade fire stop" like the 3M products will not sustain a flame. Given plenum rated wire and commercial grade fire stop you're pretty safe from fire, but that stuff is packed with enough chemicals that if you do somehow manage to ignite it, then you're F'd, of course that probably doesn't matter because to ignite it you'd have to be dead and cooked and cremated first. Still your next door neighbor probably doens't want to die of cancer so thats why they sell the wimpy but better than nothing residential stuff to rando civilians. From memory the weak stuff is flourescent orange and the strong stuff is "sewer malfunction" brown, but I could have it reversed.
Anyway the point is you can add somewhat toxic stuff to plastic to make it not burn, and thats pretty common on this side of the pond, maybe not in the UK.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @12:52PM
There is much more to it than this. There is insulation behind the cladding (which is basically a rain screen) and the insulation was flammable too. You can make a gap in the insulation and put in a "fire stop" of some sort - but that would also be a thermal bridge which defeats the purpose of the insulation... Same goes for placing stuff to block air gap (chimney...) between insulation and cladding. Also, when you have a chimney 24 stories tall the fire stops would need to be much much wider than on your house - the fire would jump a 2x4 instantly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @12:58PM (2 children)
Sorry, that's bullshit. In wooden construction, there is little you can do to slow down the fire much. Heck, they allow for "engineered joists" which are basically plywood-like structural elements. These burn soooo much faster than solid lumber, yet, they are allowed for single family homes. You have basically only few minutes. And firefighters should never enter a house with "engineered" floor joists - it's basically a deathtrap. To slow down fire, like in a garage, there is only drywall (gypsum) that is a little thicker. It gives you few more minutes to get out. And all structures requires interconnected fire alarm systems.
But none of these apply for large buildings!!! None of these apply for *commercial* buildings. There you need special fireproof everything. Sprinkler system. Only metal 2x4, no wood. Only wires that do not burn. And only wires that do not emit smokes on vertical elements. And this type of combustible cladding is completely banned on buildings over 3-4 stories and ALL commercial buildings.. And the chimney was inside the cladding. It's perfectly fine for your house, but NOT for tall buildings like that.
This is just an example of you what you get with the policy of "cutting regulation". That policy has been in Britain for well over a decade now, and now nearly 100 innocent people lost their lives for no good reason. This cladding would be completely illegal for tall buildings in rest of EU.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)
Uhhhhmmmmm - no, it's really not bullshit. I understand what you're saying about cheap construction, and cheap materials. But, reputable craftsmen still build with real wood, and they take the time to make the structure as strong and as safe as possible.
The wooden, 2x4 firestops are only mentioned as an example. I understand that commercial towers are much different than single family dwellings, or even two to six story apartment houses. The concept remains - you interrupt those open spaces to slow down the spread of flames. These fireblocks don't "fireproof" anything, they just slow the spread. An extra ten minutes can make the difference between living or dying in a fire.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday June 26 2017, @08:57PM
Additionally, tower blocks of Grenfell's vintage are designed on the principle of compartmentalisation, and containing any fire within the flat in which it starts. Each flat is a separated concrete block, with sturdy (~1hr rated) fire doors fitted at the entrance. This approach has worked [london-fire.gov.uk] in the past [london-fire.gov.uk], so official advice has been for residents to stay in their flat unless they feel in imminent danger. If a fire can bypass this compartmentalisation and spread along the outside of the building instead, all bets are off.
Note that while I can explain this policy I can't advocate the use of tower blocks with one staircase, no centralised fire alarm system and no sprinkler system for residential purposes .
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday June 26 2017, @08:23AM (12 children)
So the whole country is full of unsafe tower blocks. There's a full blown epidemic of unsafe construction... and the fire inspectors didn't notice a single one before the Grenfell disaster?
What on Earth do they spend their time doing?
(Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Monday June 26 2017, @09:06AM (8 children)
Getting fired in the name of cutting spending for quite a few years now, apparently:
From 2015: https://www.fbu.org.uk/policy/2015/future-fire-and-rescue-service [fbu.org.uk]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tower-block-fire-safety-checks-10641046 [mirror.co.uk]
This being a deliberate policy for the past few years...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/government-ministers-congratulated-themselves-for-cutting-fire-regulations-6713967/ [metro.co.uk]
(For non UK readers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safety_inspector [wikipedia.org]
"Most fire safety inspectors are uniformed officers and are professional firefighters who have transferred from front line service into the Fire Safety Department of the Fire & Rescue Service in which they work"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @09:49AM (1 child)
It's the same issue with all preventive safety-related jobs: If they do their task well, nothing serious happens, and therefore the bean counters think they don't need those people because nothing serious happens anyway.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 26 2017, @05:57PM
If they do their task well, nothing serious happens, and therefore the bean counters think they don't need those people because nothing serious happens anyway.
Not just bean counter... It's also the voters.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday June 26 2017, @11:19AM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @09:08PM
Yes because their landlords will be free to make more profits at their expense. And the great capitalist people of Rochdale love that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Monday June 26 2017, @06:03PM (2 children)
Friend of a friend was doing some volunteer work for the local fire brigade, mainly checking/fitting smoke alarms for the elderly, so he wasn't even being paid apart from the odd hot drink. The smoke alarms were free to the elderly, as was the (volunteer) labour for fitting them, but it all fell by the wayside in the last round of funding cuts. If you hear of any cooked pensioners in the Greater Manchester area, that'll be at least in part due to your friendly Conservative government and their colossal hard-on for privatising the shit out of everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @09:12PM (1 child)
Smoke detectors cost $5 each. Multiply that by 1000s of pensioners and you easily have $5000. Everyone needs to tighten their belts so the Brits can afford a new $6B aircraft carrier and Trident nuclear missiles that will SAVE BRITISH LIVES. Unlike boring smoke detectors.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday June 30 2017, @12:43PM
Oh, absolutely. Smoke detectors aren't sexy unless you have some very specific definition of the word. The comical part is that a lot of pensioners - those probably more likely to be found well done rather than medium rare due to lack of a smoke alarm - generally vote for the party that is cutting funding for exactly that service.
I'm sure our current major threats - terrorists who are resident in the UK, generally based in working class areas and are radicalised by what they read - are quite brown-trousered at the thought of a Trident missile landing on their terraced house in some backwater town. While the Conservative Party would love to flatten working-class areas in the name of gerrymandering, I suspect that yelling "but terrorists!" wouldn't act as a silver bullet in this instance. ;)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @06:53PM
> downward trend in fires and fire deaths justifies making further cuts to the fire and rescue service.
I wished they'd apply the same to terrorism. "Considering that this year far fewer people died due to terrorism than fires, anti-terror laws and spending should be drastically reduced".
Makes sense, but who (especially among UK politicians) would give up on such an opportunity to "do" something...
(Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Monday June 26 2017, @12:46PM (1 child)
Its very unclear whether these tests are ones the buildings should have passed when they were refurbished, or whether they are new standards that with "20:20 hindsight" should have been applied...
Its equally unclear whether the cladding was "as specified" when the plans were approved, or if someone has unofficially substituted a cheaper product or fitting method.
...and its likely to remain unclear, because it is quite likely to end up as evidence in judicial inquiries, civil cases and criminal prosecutions, so the people who actually know won't be casually chatting about it to the press.
Probably soft-targetting individuals who just want to build a new domestic garage for their house and don't have lobbying powers on the local council. I remember my parents having a new pre-fab garage built in the 70s and the planning dept. insisting that half the front lawn be covered in concrete so that vehicles could turn and, hilariously, having to replace some external and internal panelling in the garage with asbestos... I assume that, by now, some later owner has had to pay an exorbitant sum to have the men in bunny suits come and take the evil death panels (tm) away...
Waiting for the winter, when all these de-cladded tower blocks get so cold and damp that all the residents start buying cheap electric fires from FleaBay...
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @04:06PM
Bingo.
There is also the interesting issue of whether the various panels actually pass the fire tests that they are certified to have passed, and apparently some do not. This brings the system of independent testing labs and supply chain (possible fake products) under scrutiny as well - fire retardant products could be specified by all concerned and the stuff fitted could be marked as meeting spec, but actually doesn't when tested. Not in the Grenfell case, where it appears someone knew they were fitting flammable, but in other towers being tested.
But the big issue IMO is the building regs. New buildings would have to have sprinklers, end of story. The cladding would still go up like a match but the interior of the building would be saved as would the people (see the several fires in Dubai with this type of cladding).
These old buildings were designed to contain fires in one flat/apartment, and that design works (there have been real fires, contained), but with the cladding added to the outside that design is broken. Fire will be able to travel from flat to flat even if the cladding and the insulation are fire resistant because of the air gap, which in reality could be filled with whatever crap the builders dropped when it was fitted, which could well be flammable. With a refurbishment that totally breaks original design assumptions in event of fire, the whole building should be brought up to current fire standards which means (at least) sprinklers, changing the fire protocols and advice, and (at worst) far fewer deaths and quite possibly everyone gets out.
When I was looking at converting my loft, I was told by council building control that I would need to retrofit sprinklers and self closing fire doors to the entire house, because it would then be more than 4 floors (which made it not worth doing). Where were those building control people when a council is making major changes to a tower block? This is the issue: the council commissions the work, pays the bill, grants the permission for the work, inspects the work and certifies it meets the regulations. Conflicts of interest abound, and where they do corruption will not be far behind.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Monday June 26 2017, @02:45PM
They'd noticed in Scotland. After a tower block fire in Scotland in 1999, Scottish building regulations were changed [bbc.co.uk] by 2005, stating:
The tower blocks tested (and failed) so far are all from England, which has its own building regulations. Scottish and Welsh authorities have said they believe all the cladding fitted to tower blocks in their areas is safe (but are cheking in case).
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 26 2017, @09:17AM (3 children)
One engineer seems to be saying that this type of cladding is allowed, at least with some restrictions, in "D.C. [District of Columbia] and three states — Minnesota, Indiana and Massachusetts."
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/24/534100561/some-u-s-states-relax-restrictions-on-cladding-suspected-in-grenfell-tower-fire [npr.org]
He writes that there is/was a proposal to allow it in Massachusetts.
http://www.firesafenorthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/FSNAWhitePaperNFPA285.pdf [firesafenorthamerica.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @03:02PM (2 children)
Those are good links.
Thanks greenies, for killing people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
Sure, mark my comment as a troll. Meanwhile architecture and engineering firms push their green, energy-saving, and affordable designs, which end up being fire traps. Why do you think fire-safety regulations are being cut in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin (all blue states). Indiana is the one outlier.
Human attention is limited, and if we focus too much on less important things (energy savings), we are bound to get bitten by critical issues (fire safety).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @09:17PM
Hi Troll. I coat my penis in petroleum jelly to make sure it is protected in case of friction burns. Little did I realize that a simple fridge fire in the lower levels would set the whole thing ablaze. I got quite the shock I can tell you! Thanks for all the tips xxx
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Pax on Monday June 26 2017, @12:40PM (4 children)
Scottish bu7ilding regulations on fire safety in 2005 means that we don't have any-local govt/housing association building with cladding that can go in fire.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15359417.No_Scottish_council_high_rise_flats_have_same_cladding_as_Grenfell_Tower/ [eveningtimes.co.uk]
Seems to be a problem only in England and perhaps Wales and Northern Ireland.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @07:44PM (3 children)
Wonder what insulation they have up in Scotland (possibly a lot of it...), since that turned out to be as bad as the cladding...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Pax on Tuesday June 27 2017, @12:18AM (2 children)
it's subject to the same strict fire and building regulations regulations as cladding here. We have much stricter building regulations for fire and have done since 2005.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday June 29 2017, @07:16PM (1 child)
Regulations are useless if not enforced. The cladding used does not meet the letter of English building regs. but was still used.
Meanwhile University halls of residence in Edinburgh (in Scotland, right?) have been found to have same cladding as Grenfell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40414502 [bbc.co.uk]
Ho hum...
(Score: 1) by Pax on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:49PM
Edinburgh Uni i8s in a lot of shit for a lot of things lately with reference to breaking regulations bud.
however..... with reference to local council/housing associations... not a single building with that stuff on it.
Expect to hear a LOT in the new soon about Edinburgh uni ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @02:57PM (2 children)
These cladding sheets were rather thin (a few mm) and the main fuel for the fire seems to have been the thick insulating foam (150 mm) between the cladding and concrete exterior. Why is the cladding getting 95 % of the attention?
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Monday June 26 2017, @11:03PM (1 child)
The foam is part of the cladding. Both the foam and the aluminum are a single integrated product called Reynobond PE [arconic.com]. It's basically a sandwich of foam and aluminum you can slap on the outside of the building to improve insulation and make it look shiny.
The problem is what was used is not an appropriate product. Polyethylene is highly flammable. They should have been using the slightly-more-expensive FR version, which is basically the same thing, but with non-flammable insulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @11:18PM
The cladding is a sandwich of aluminum-plastic-aluminum which has a few mm total thickness. Between this outside cladding and the old exterior concrete, there are 150 mm of insulating foam. This foam is not part of the cladding, but was a large contributor to the fire. See discussion here [telegraph.co.uk] and drawing here [nytimes.com].
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:39PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/uk-building-cladding-samples-tested-failed-fire-safety-48263491 [go.com]