On 23/06/2017 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 22:31, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam''
escribió:

Raynobond PE has after all on paper got a UK "Class 0" fire rating.

I wonder if that's like "RAID 0" in computing, where RAID0 confers no
redundancy or protection against failure at all, in fact quite the
opposite


I guess so in the sense that it isn't actually against the law to use
it but it offers no protection whatsoever.

I don't see why they are so surprised that contractors will use the
cheapest nastiest product they think they can legally get away with.
It will be very interesting to see if they can make any prosecutions
stick.
(I somehow doubt it)

The one thing it might be possible to have them for are the vertical
triangular chimneys that appeared to have been made on the fins of the
building (but only if inspection of the remaining parts can
demonstrate that they had no fire stops in them). The outer cladding
was so very flammable that no realistic fire stop could have stopped
it spreading.

Police have just announced they intend to try for manslaughter charges
after both the cladding and the insulation allegedly failed fire tests
with the insulation being the more flammable if the Grauniad is to be
believed. BBC breaking news hasn't caught up yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ughter-charges


Perhaps we come back to the possibility that the insulation installed
was not actually what was specified. More tests are needed...

I find it hard to believe that Celotex burned so easily (although
originally I thought the stuff shown looked more like rigid PU).

Of course. The guardian is as usual wrong



The TNP is as usual wrong.
Celotex rs5000 is not fire resistant and does burn on its own let alone
in combination with other fuel.