On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:05:51 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6/25/2017 10:15 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 6/25/17 9:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The cause was a simple fire that should have been easy to contain and
stop. We often complain about regulations, but they would have saved
lives here. Looks like most of the world does not allow flammable
material, but the Brits allow it.

I also find it unconscionable for Alcoa to make a product that is
known to burn and is not approved in much of the wold. Hey, it
cheaper and the Brits will buy it. A bunch of people should end up in
jail from this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/w...ndon-fire.html


Two major problems in addition, either of which would have made a huge
difference. There was only one stairwell so people couldn't get out. The
other is because of one stairwell, the emergency plan was that people
should shelter in place. Since the burning was outside on the cladding,
it should have given people plenty of time to get out before breaking
through and entering the building.

When I first heard it on the new I figured it was a very old building
never brought up to code. I was amazed at the age and lack of
sprinklers and alarms.

Good find Ed. It confirms what I said in my earlier post, that
this is a classic example of why building codes are important
and just letting people do as they please is a very bad idea.
One could argue that it happened with codes, but obviously the
UK is way, way behind on reasonable safety codes. It was built
in the 70s and you certainly couldn't have built that building
in a major city in the US with no fire alarms, no sprinklers,
one stairwell, no fire escape back then. That it was just
renovated without correcting any of that is beyond belief.