Thread: Pro disasters
View Single Post
  #11   Report Post  
Bob Mannix
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...


snip lots of stuff

All I was saying was I don't think running gas pipes along external
brickwork (as I have seen in plenty of places, although never round an
external door frame) is illegal.

Between * and * describes it quite well, I think. Piping which goes round

a
door frame is available to be swung on. If it's available it will be as
anyone with experience of children and adolecents will know.


I have experience of both (having both at present in the house), if you were
implying I didn't! How available it is to be swung on depends on how it's
fixed - as you say a photo would ease the pain of any misunderstanding.

The fact remains though the domestic gas loose
outside isn't particularly dangerous compared with it loose inside. Even
if
there's no-one in, a light gas explosion will destroy a house as most
masonry walls will only withstand about 2psi (AFAIR) (across the whole
wall)
lateral pressure difference.


Of course it will. An HGV going off the road and hitting a house can

destroy
it too, we don't keep them out of residential areas (sadly). There are

many
examples of possible dangers.


I wasn't saying there weren't. I was saying gas on the loose inside is
*more* dangerous than gas on the loose outside, with an example. I can't
work out from your reply whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with that
point, I'm afraid. If you think the difference is irrelevant, I will have to
beg to differ.


If someone popped up now with a proposal to pipe inflammable gas into
people's houses in thin walled cooper tube (this not having been thought
of
yet) they would be laughed at, of course, but there we go!


Using such examples of bad practice are irrelevant. There must be

thousands
of such things. No-one suggests piping gas into in people's houses.


Yes they do- I think you missed the irony. Gas supplies are exactly that.
They are only tolerated because they already exist. If they were suggested
now (having not existed) they wouldn't be allowed at all.

And it should when routing gas or water pipes and electricial wiring and
that include potential accidential or malicious physical damage.


Aha! a point we seem to agree on (see my earlier posting on fitter's
negligence, lack of care etc) )

Bob

Mary

Bob