On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

Saw a demonstration of it going up in flames the next day on TV.
But of course any such demonstration may not be characteristic of the
product if installed correctly, and for the purpose intended.

For example, untreated T&G cladding is extremely inflammable if air can
get to either side easily. But mount it on suitable plasterboard etc, and
you get the same appearance but much better fire protection.

--
*Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question, not
a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke getting
into it. Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There
weren't even any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services -
not.

That, to me, is the important part any investigation has to explain. An
escape route is the last resort which is by far more important than any
other.

Adding a second staircase with the same woeful disregard for making it
conform to what is already common knowledge is simply throwing good
money after bad.

Why assume here was any woeful disregard in the design of the first
staircase?

I'm not - you are by suggesting a second staircase is essential. I'm
guessing the original design of the staircase and public landings etc was
compromised by the redevelopment. And not picked up by a decent inspection
afterwards.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

And then pay even more for the land needed to replace it. It is already at
the 'cheap' end of K&C.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question, not
a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke getting
into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

That, to me, is the important part any investigation has to explain. An
escape route is the last resort which is by far more important than any
other.

Adding a second staircase with the same woeful disregard for making it
conform to what is already common knowledge is simply throwing good
money after bad.

Why assume here was any woeful disregard in the design of the first
staircase?

I'm not - you are by suggesting a second staircase is essential.

"Essential" is a little prejudicial. I'll go with "very helpful" at this
stage.

I'm guessing the original design of the staircase and public landings
etc was compromised by the redevelopment. And not picked up by a decent
inspection afterwards.

As far as I can see they weren't changed in the redevelopment.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question,
not a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke
getting into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.


some of use already knew that .......

In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK, where 80% of our laws derive; the 20% of EU-derived ones get a bad
press).
--
Roland Perry

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question,
not a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke
getting into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

Some certainly are. Some are life saving. And every shade inbetween also exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do (Grenfell?).

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been unsatifactory.


NT

The Natural Philosopher posted
On 21/06/17 00:11, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.
I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

That is not being on fire.
And I rather doubt your story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkM1kOO0S0I

is what happened when I tried. (no that isn't me. just a video I found)


After I had insulated our loft with 150mm Celotex slabs, I tried burning
the leftovers on a bonfire. It sort of burned with a half-hearted flame
and then went out, despite regular stoking. Next morning the dead
bonfire contained a load of charred black lumps. I took them to the
dump.

--
Jack

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:56:53 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK,

there are, but at least there is the possibility to change them & their laws. And they don't insist we hand over billions of pounds every year, with silly excuses to up the bill greatly every so often.


NT

where 80% of our laws derive; the 20% of EU-derived ones get a bad
press).

In message , at
10:05:05 on Wed, 21 Jun 2017, remarked:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:56:53 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK,

there are, but at least there is the possibility to change them & their
laws.

It's easier to do that in Brussels than Westminster. Apart from anything
else you can recruit the help of lots of like-minded EU states to pursue
a common policy aim.

And they don't insist we hand over billions of pounds every year, with
silly excuses to up the bill greatly every so often.

Everyone will soon find out that the cost of being a member is less than
the cost of leaving. None of the sums mentioned include the benefit of
being in the single market, or the economies of scale of not having to
reproduce various EU entities with home grown ones.

And that's not even counting the "divorce lump sum".
--
Roland Perry

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:31:36 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:05:05 on Wed, 21 Jun 2017, tabbypurr remarked:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:56:53 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK,

there are, but at least there is the possibility to change them & their
laws.

It's easier to do that in Brussels than Westminster. Apart from anything
else you can recruit the help of lots of like-minded EU states to pursue
a common policy aim.

And they don't insist we hand over billions of pounds every year, with
silly excuses to up the bill greatly every so often.

Everyone will soon find out that the cost of being a member is less than
the cost of leaving. None of the sums mentioned include the benefit of
being in the single market, or the economies of scale of not having to
reproduce various EU entities with home grown ones.

And that's not even counting the "divorce lump sum".

I can't help thinking that's all an unrealistic analysis. But everyone's entitled to their vote.


NT

On 21/06/17 18:01, wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it would be a
condition of insurance


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some houses
were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived the test of
time. And some have worked well, some have been unsatifactory.


NT

we would just to back to the burgh police scotland act and four brass screws
holding your toilet down...buchan traps, salt glazed pipes....and no timber
frame separating walls ....and the understanding that indoor toilets are a
bad idea...ashpits and dungsteds ....and larder vents

On 21/06/17 18:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:05:05 on Wed, 21 Jun 2017, remarked:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:56:53 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There
weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK,

there are, but at least there is the possibility to change them &
their laws.

It's easier to do that in Brussels than Westminster.

ROFLMAO!!!

Apart from anything
else you can recruit the help of lots of like-minded EU states to pursue
a common policy aim.

And they don't insist we hand over billions of pounds every year, with
silly excuses to up the bill greatly every so often.

Everyone will soon find out that the cost of being a member is less than
the cost of leaving.

still in denial?

None of the sums mentioned include the benefit of
being in the single market, or the economies of scale of not having to
reproduce various EU entities with home grown ones.

Or the diseconomies of scale of having to lobby the EU for ten years to
get permission to build a nuclear reactor.


And that's not even counting the "divorce lump sum".

You are a card Roland. A veritable card


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 21/06/17 18:55, wrote:
I can't help thinking that's all an unrealistic analysis. But
everyone's entitled to their vote.
Course it is. It's Roland.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message ...

The Natural Philosopher posted
On 21/06/17 00:11, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.
I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

That is not being on fire.
And I rather doubt your story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkM1kOO0S0I

is what happened when I tried. (no that isn't me. just a video I found)


After I had insulated our loft with 150mm Celotex slabs, I tried burning
the leftovers on a bonfire. It sort of burned with a half-hearted flame and
then went out, despite regular stoking. Next morning the dead bonfire
contained a load of charred black lumps. I took them to the dump.

Sorry, I am fairly certain you won't qualify for a luxury flat in
Kensington. Nice try though.

On 21/06/2017 15:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

And then pay even more for the land needed to replace it. It is already at
the 'cheap' end of K&C.


Replace it?

On 21/06/2017 17:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

8


Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

It was mentioned that they couldn't see the numbers, however that may
have been smoke and other crap covering them. It was mentioned that
raised numbers would have been better. So there may have been numbers..
However I have been in blocks where the odd resident has put a number on
the door to the stairs, all different and only on a few floors.

On 21/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or the diseconomies of scale of having to lobby the EU for ten years to
get permission to build a nuclear reactor.


We don't need EU permission to build a nuclear reactor so that's more
brex**** from you.

In message , at 19:38:21 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

at least there is the possibility to change them & their laws.

It's easier to do that in Brussels than Westminster.

ROFLMAO!!!

Yes, it's true. Despite two of the projects I've been pushing up the
agenda recently being in the Queen's speech, it'd still have been easier
to do the same work in Brussels.

And, of course, getting it into the Queen's Speech is vastly less
certain to result in a successful conclusion [irrespective of the
current Parliamentary difficulties] than the European Commission
sticking something into their work schedule.
--
Roland Perry

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it would be a
condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for noncompliant houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer that refuses Victorian houses.


NT

On 21/06/17 20:49, wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it would be a
condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for noncompliant houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer that refuses Victorian houses.


I know plenty who refuse thatched houses.

You have to jump through hoops with the rest.


NT



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:05:05 on Wed, 21 Jun 2017, remarked:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:56:53 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:22:08 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There
weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

Missing or, not working?

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building
regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK,

there are, but at least there is the possibility to change them &
their laws.

It's easier to do that in Brussels than Westminster. Apart from anything
else you can recruit the help of lots of like-minded EU states to pursue
a common policy aim.

And they don't insist we hand over billions of pounds every year, with
silly excuses to up the bill greatly every so often.

Everyone will soon find out that the cost of being a member is less than
the cost of leaving. None of the sums mentioned include the benefit of
being in the single market, or the economies of scale of not having to
reproduce various EU entities with home grown ones.

And that's not even counting the "divorce lump sum".

Delusions abound amongst Remoaners!

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK, where 80% of our laws derive; the 20% of EU-derived ones get a bad
press).

I'd be rather surprised if bureaucrats initialised much in the way of
building regs? Mostly done on advice, I'd say. Choosing the right expert
to get that advice from is the tricky part.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted
on. Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

Some certainly are. Some are life saving. And every shade inbetween also
exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any
current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do
(Grenfell?).

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

Didn't building regs in a crude form start rather earlier than 100 years
ago? After the fire of London?

--
*DON'T SWEAT THE PETTY THINGS AND DON'T PET THE SWEATY THINGS.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

And then pay even more for the land needed to replace it. It is
already at the 'cheap' end of K&C.


Replace it?

Of course. The insurance money *must* be used to replace it with suitable
council homes.

The so called affordable housing that private developers claim they will
build in a planning application always seems to somehow shrink in number
by the time work finishes. Certainly did when Boris was Mayor. Be
interesting to see if Khan does any better.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it would be a
condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for noncompliant
houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer that refuses
Victorian houses.

They did some years ago. Along with many building societies. But only some
designs. Difficult types were terraced with semi basements. Presumably due
to damp issues.

NT

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 13:24:24 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

There was mention on TV last night of checks on other cladded towers
across the country. Most, it seems, use a better skin as regards fire
resistance. But one which does use the same skin was mentioned as having a
different fitting method as regards airgaps and fire breaks, etc. Will be
interesting to find out the full details at any enquiry.

I think we are already at the point where all UK sales of Raynobond PE
should be chased down. Raiding their distributors and seizing files to
do it if that is what it takes. Priority should be given to eliminating
it from all the places where it most seriously compromises safety which
is just about anywhere that a true Class 0 fire resistance is required.

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

As far as I can see the Celotex is more or less blameless although the
FR5000 would have been better I doubt if it would alter the outcome -
the outer layer of cladding just burnt far too fiercely.


Cyanide from PIR:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nhalation.html

Simon.

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:14:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted
on. Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

Some certainly are. Some are life saving. And every shade inbetween also
exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any
current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do
(Grenfell?).

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

Didn't building regs in a crude form start rather earlier than 100 years
ago? After the fire of London?

To a limited extent yes. London Building Act of 1667. Before that came the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, around 1700BC.
If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
If it ruins goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.
If a builder builds a house for someone, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.

From 1875 foundations had to be 2' deep - they often weren't though. Early BR from after WW1 did make a real difference to the standards of construction, especially wrt damp problems.

But I'd still like the opportunity to build & ignore all the rules. I'm sure I could make a fine house that obeyed almost none of them. I'd like to see a new town where BR weren't applied, you just have to show some way to deal with the important issues then you can build. It would generate a lot of creativity and produce lots of often good houses at much lower cost. It would be a proving ground for ideas, and would I'm sure generate an assortment of new accepted ways to build. BR has its place, but it's really stifling British creativity & economic progress.


NT

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:24:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived
the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been
unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it would be a
condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for noncompliant
houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer that refuses
Victorian houses.

They did some years ago. Along with many building societies. But only some
designs. Difficult types were terraced with semi basements. Presumably due
to damp issues.

It's possible to get insurance from specialists for buildings with major problems, and 10s of millions of noncompliant houses are insured, so I don't see insuring a noncompliant building being too big a problem, even if the field of players is smaller.


NT

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

In message , at 00:03:03 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.
Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

It's a see-saw. There are some, I've been told, who are fed up with red
tape from un-elected bureaucrats (of which there as just as many in the
UK, where 80% of our laws derive; the 20% of EU-derived ones get a bad
press).

I'd be rather surprised if bureaucrats initialised much in the way of
building regs? Mostly done on advice, I'd say. Choosing the right expert
to get that advice from is the tricky part.

Strange you say that - the same is true of virtually every regulation
relating to the quality of a product or service.
--
Roland Perry

On 22/06/17 00:51, wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:24:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago.
Some houses were built properly to last, some weren't and
haven't survived the test of time. And some have worked well,
some have been unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it
would be a condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for
noncompliant houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer
that refuses Victorian houses.

They did some years ago. Along with many building societies. But
only some designs. Difficult types were terraced with semi
basements. Presumably due to damp issues.

It's possible to get insurance from specialists for buildings with
major problems, and 10s of millions of noncompliant houses are
insured, so I don't see insuring a noncompliant building being too
big a problem, even if the field of players is smaller.

Depends on what is being insured.

Its very hard to get insurance for houses with subsidence problems, but
no one cares about lack of insulation except the occupants.

NT



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 22/06/17 06:50, RJH wrote:

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€�.


....Is exactly the WRONG person to be signing off that regs are met...

They seem to be confusing the contractor being the right person to order
and install the correct materials, with the independent inspector being
the right person to prove the contractor is honest.

En el artículo , Martin Brown '''newspam'
escribió:

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

Interesting photo here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...renfell-tower-
16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding#img-2

or http://tinyurl.com/y8e9bbxa

"Burning debris from Grenfell Tower thought to be the cladding used on
the outside"

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 22/06/17 08:37, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam'
escribió:

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

Interesting photo here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...renfell-tower-
16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding#img-2

or http://tinyurl.com/y8e9bbxa

"Burning debris from Grenfell Tower thought to be the cladding used on
the outside"

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

yes


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft