Tower block fire - london

Above&Beyond said:
The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.
Click to expand...
Sort of like the Korean ship that went down where all the students were told to stay in their rooms as it sank...
 
Above&Beyond said:
The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I read earlier that the cladding was upgraded as part of a recent refurbishment. It clear contributed to the fire, you only have to look at the building now. Is this stuff not covered by regulation?

Come to think of it most of the new build apartment these days are covered in wood or other very flammable looking materials.
 
Mynight said:
Ahh you said it was made from the same material I thought you were being literal.
Click to expand...

same here

though I wouldn't be surprised if we do find out that the cladding isn't as fire resistant as first thought - combination of that and a chimney effect/lack of fire breaks seems to be speculated to be the issue at the moment
 
:'( Awful news.

I can't believe how it went up so quickly from virtually nothing to the entire building. They never stood a chance.
I've not read the thread but this dictates someone didn't follow H&S guidelines in the refurbishment. If they complained to the mayor about it like they say they did it's going to hit the fan!
 
LOAM said:
In this context though its vital that they are learned regardless of the outcome of an investigation. Its sad but safety improvements come about after these things happen.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, they never are.

They said that after the 2009 fire
They said that after the terror attack in 2005
They said that after baby p

It's become a meaningless soundbite
 
Apparently building regs were followed regarding the interior and exterior walls, however the regs don't cover the 35mm gap between the two. It's been reported for years as a risk but nothing done about it.
 
glen8 said:
Apparently building regs were followed regarding the interior and exterior walls, however the regs don't cover the 35mm gap between the two. It's been reported for years as a risk but nothing done about it.
Click to expand...

The way you say that, it does not make any sense at all 100%
 
Might have already been mentioned but anybody see the dreadlocked idiot on BBC (now removed) claiming that he "wasn't sure it was an accident as the Govt. always wanted to get rid of the tenants and they'd achieved it.
The simpering BBC interviewer simply said "well we don't know that" as if there is a chance it could be true, never really challenged him at all but then it was BBC.
 
Was surprised not to see helicopters rescuing people from the roof like in America. We are so far behind other countries in terms of fire regulations, no sprinklers or emergency exits on the side of the building is beyond shocking.
 
If you know for sure that it started accidentally then you could always provide that information to the BBC yourself. The presenter was very clear to challenge the opinion but it's not the job of the news to really go any further.
 
I think that the key issue here is the building regulations are a minimum standard and no reputable organisation would rely solely on building regulation approval as evidence of a safe design. The company I work for used a mantra 'Safe by design', it has been replaced by '100% Safe'. This a very high aim, however it is stated as the primary concern of every designer that it must be 100% safe and will keep the users safe.

CDM requires that all designs must be safe. Any person from the commissioning client down to the final user or owner through designer, design checker, estimator, buyer, anyone who has an input on materials or methods could be considered to be part of the design and should have a keen eye on the safety of the design.

If the cladding (for example) met with the building fire regulations it is not an excuse just to say that it must be OK. It must be shown that the design incorporated it because it was proven to be suitable in the conditions in which it was used and that all precautions have been taken and the scheme risk assessed with that material as cladding.

The UK has some of the most onerous regulation for buildings in the world. We covered progressive collapse of buildings in our codes which may have helped the twin towers not to fall so rapidly in New York. This requirement followed on from the infamous Ronan point gas explosion and other collapses, which also uncovered the use and problems with high alumina cements and system built high rises. Our codes are not the problem, the implementation of them or assessing the potential hazards that could arise may be an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom