Tower block fire - london

Dolph · 24 Jun 2017 at 08:51

Tunney said:
If it's not being reported in the media, how did you find out that most of the resident are illegal asylum seekers? Also, what does "illegal asylum seekers" even mean?

I suspect the source is either a bloke down the pub or some form of hate site.

kitfit1 · 24 Jun 2017 at 10:37

Just watched an interesting interview on the BBC with the leader of Birmingham City Council.
He said that Birmingham has 213 tower blocks and that none of them had the cladding fitted that Grenfell did. He also said that all the towers had sprinklers installed in the communal areas.
The thing that surprised me most though was his statement that the council had costed for retro fitting every flat with sprinklers at a cost of £31m. In my mind that seemed not a lot of money for the shear volume of flats involved. If his figure of £31m is correct, then why on earth were councils around the country pleading "cost" whenever sprinklers were mentioned in previous reports.

robfosters · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:11

Watching coverage on Sky news. A complete farce. 73 year old woman sitting on a bench all night because they can't rehouse her because she has a dog.

V F · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:19

Lots of people stayed in the towers but will be forced out today...

stewski · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:19

Dolph said:
So the three impacted Plymouth towers are quite local to me (same council ward, the towers themselves are about a mile from my house), and comparing the two cases makes for interesting reading.

The cladding of the three blocks in Plymouth was completed in 2000, commissioned by the local labour government and under new labour, during a time of large public spending increases. That, for me, kind of puts pay to the idea that austerity or any particular political party is at fault.

The insulation used behind the cladding is different, using Rockwood rather than polyisocyanurate as the material, which interestingly ties in with the statement from the metropolitan police that both the insulation and cladding at Grenfell were part of the problem. (There have been fires in the towers in Devonport that have been contained to the flat as expected).

This further reinforces the idea that something went very wrong at Grenfell, as the cladding seems to have been ok when installed correctly elsewhere. While I support in full the current approach of resolving any buildings with incorrect cladding on them, we need to ensure that the focus on the cladding itself doesn't mean we overlook other aspects.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/dev...adding-fears/story-30407499-detail/story.html

Are you saying (in summary) that because different, essentially safer, cladding was used in the plymouth blocks 17 years ago, you believe that austerity and current government effectively are proven to have had no part in the issues at Grenfell, as I can't see how that follows.

Dolph · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:33

stewski said:
Are you saying (in summary) that because different, essentially safer cladding was used in the plymouth blocks 17 years ago you believe that austerity and current government effectively are proven to have had no part in the issues at Grenfell as I can't see how that follows.

Rockwool is generally the cheaper option compared something like celotex as used in the Grenfell tower, so I doubt that choice was due to austerity.

But no, my key point was that we should not get distracted looking at cladding to the isolation or other factors, nor blaming current administrations for problems that span across multiple areas with different histories or when the cladding was fitted in different economic times.

What matters is working out what went wrong at Grenfell and ensuring it cannot happen anywhere else.

stewski · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:41

Dolph said:
Rockwool is generally the cheaper option compared something like celotex as used in the Grenfell tower, so I doubt that choice was due to austerity.

But no, my key point was that we should not get distracted looking at cladding to the isolation or other factors, nor blaming current administrations for problems that span across multiple areas with different histories or when the cladding was fitted in different economic times.

What matters is working out what went wrong at Grenfell and ensuring it cannot happen anywhere else.

I'd agree with the last part, at this point and with the information to hand, I'd take nothing off the table, including Austerity and Central and Local Government decisions as potential issues, I'm not sure what is gained by doing so. If we can show that a more expensive option was picked over, essentially a cheaper and safer option, the how and why that choice was made, will be crucial to understand.

IMHO at this point, fully open/transparent investigation is vital and not only should it be entirely independent of government/vested interests, it should be seen to be as such!

V F · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:42

Dolph said:
What matters is working out what went wrong at Grenfell and ensuring it cannot happen anywhere else.

It doesn't feel that way when watching the news. Trying to blame others and save their own behinds at the same time trying to pretend they care.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:45

Nonsense!
Fire resistant and non-combustible Rockwool is more expensive then the cheap polyethylene core cladding used at Grenfell

stewski · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:47

V F said:
It doesn't feel that way when watching the news. Trying to blame others and save their own behinds at the same time trying to pretend they care.

I'm not really bothered about the feelings of people with vested interests in the decision making process (past and present), that has lead to these deaths, are you?

robfosters · 24 Jun 2017 at 11:58

The council says they will reimburse people who have paid for their own accommodation.

I wonder what the cutoff is? Hotels in that area are not exactly cheap, you can be looking at £200 a night just for a budget hotel. If they have to be gone a week, that's nigh on £1500.

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:00

Dolph said:
Rockwool is generally the cheaper option compared something like celotex as used in the Grenfell tower, so I doubt that choice was due to austerity.

But no, my key point was that we should not get distracted looking at cladding to the isolation or other factors, nor blaming current administrations for problems that span across multiple areas with different histories or when the cladding was fitted in different economic times.

What matters is working out what went wrong at Grenfell and ensuring it cannot happen anywhere else.

I think in part that's true but also bare in mind PIR wasn't widely used outside of timber frame construction back then due to its high cost.

Also I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't be blaming the current government, in part for this when it's been established that they have sat on the report into the lakanal house fire which suggested changes to legislatio. Considering grenfell may have benefited or been prevented by said changes, I think it's absolutely right to question what motivated them to suppress that report.

Dolph · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:04

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Nonsense!
Fire resistant and non-combustible Rockwool is more expensive then the cheap polyethylene core cladding used at Grenfell

I'm talking about the insulation, not the cladding, rockwool is cheaper than polyisocyanurate boards.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:25

Why are you talking about polyisocyanurate ??
Grenfell didn't use polyisocyanurate, the cladding was the cheap & nasty polyethylene

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:39

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Why are you talking about polyisocyanurate ??
Grenfell didn't use polyisocyanurate, the cladding was the cheap & nasty polyethylene

The current findings are that the insulation (which was PIR at grenfell) was more combustible than the cladding was, at the temperatures recorded. PE cladding has been found to be fine when used with rockwool and is detailed properly.

It come back to what I've been saying in this thread since day one, there will be no one reason for this fire but a combination of factors that caused it, which may well be unique.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:45

The insulation is part of the external cladding! But yes I understand the most combustible part was the cheap & nasty polyethylene, it's maximum continuous operating temperature is nearly half that of Polyisocyanurate (80C compared to 140C)
With regards to Rockwool then I agree, adding any type of mineral based product will improve the overall fire resistance.

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:51

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
The insulation is part of the external cladding! But yes I understand the most combustible part was the cheap & nasty polyethylene, it's maximum continuous operating temperature is nearly half that of Polyisocyanurate (80C compared to 140C)
With regards to Rockwool then I agree, adding any type of mineral based product will improve the overall fire resistance.

Your mistaken, the insulation celotex RS5000 iirc was mechanically fixed to the frame, then there is a breather membrane then a there is a 35-50mm airgap then the cladding panel on an aluminium frame (fixed to the concrete frame).

Two products, celotex and raynobond. The insulation was not part of the cladding.

LOAM · 24 Jun 2017 at 12:59

To add, celotex have withdrawn the RS5000 product from the market when used over 18m, as of yesterday.

Orionaut · 24 Jun 2017 at 13:31

V F said:
It doesn't feel that way when watching the news. Trying to blame others and save their own behinds at the same time trying to pretend they care.

Maybe if we didn't have such a blame ridden compo-culture with squadrons of "No win,No Fee" lawyers swarming like flies round a corpse, hoping to get a piece of the action, whenever something like this happens. Then we would all be able to react to disasters like this in a more objective manner and achieve quicker and more positive results...

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jun 2017 at 13:45

LOAM said:
Your mistaken, the insulation celotex RS5000 iirc was mechanically fixed to the frame, then there is a breather membrane then a there is a 35-50mm airgap then the cladding panel on an aluminium frame (fixed to the concrete frame).

Two products, celotex and raynobond. The insulation was not part of the cladding.

Yep, I stand corrected:

From what I have read both the Insulation (1) and the cladding (3) both failed the fire safety test and burnt with ease !! FFS :rolleyes: