On 21/06/2017 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 09:01, RJH wrote:
On 19/06/2017 09:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that
was the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering
it with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather
gone off the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am
unlikely to want to go in the attic.



I covered mine (80%) in plasterboard.

If inadequately enclosed insulation board is the problem

It isnt.

Te problem is inflammable decorative cladding applied over the
(fireproof) insulation


yes, seems so. An interesting circular conversation underlying a number
of media articles right now. The contractors insisting what they did
'met regs and passed inspections'. The inspectors saying 'meeting regs
the responsibility of the contractor:

Barry Turner, director of technical policy at Local Authority Building .
.. . said that it was difficult to tell the difference between
fire-resistant and non-fire resistant panels once they are installed and
stressed that €œthe person responsible for doing it right is the person
carrying out the work€�.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

I can see all sorts of problems ahead. On the house reproofing I've
seen, celotex is fixed between the joists against the internal
plasterboard with no covering to the outside.


And how many house fires have we had since celotex became de facto roof
insulation?

More than enough to raise alarms if celotex was an issue


Yes, agreed. But depending upon how this tragedy is spun non-issues (or
statistically trivial issues) could quite easily shape practice.

--
Cheers, Rob