20 year ago I worked with ceramic fibre blankets, ceramic board and glass / silica cloths fine upto about 1700 deg C, lining kilns and furnaces advancements since then would have made it fairly cheap to what it was back then....then again replacing a kiln door is expensive compared to cooking a poor person. all to do with money and theregs is just a screenYou make a good point about limited combustibility, I wonder if the higher temperatures have been caused by the so called chimney effect that allowed a draught of air unlimited access to the height of the tower blocks ?
As I recall original loft insulation it was mostly trapped air within a fibreglass type of open texture in quite large rolls. It filled the space between the wooden joists.
We then got the Kingspan type of laminate which achieved the same insulation capability at much lower thicknesses. Just thinking that if a thinner more modern laminate is put into a space originally designed for a thicker insulation then the wind tunnel is effectively formed and any fire within that space can be literally fanned which would achieve those higher temperatures.
20 year ago I worked with ceramic fibre blankets, ceramic board and glass / silica cloths fine upto about 1700 deg C, lining kilns and furnaces advancements since then would have made it fairly cheap to what it was back then....then again replacing a kiln door is expensive compared to cooking a poor person. all to do with money and theregs is just a screen
Fuck me that is low, what a horrible bloke claiming thatFake grenfell victim held on suspicion of fraud
Claimed he lost his wife and child in the blaze but he lives 20 miles away and not got a wife or child
A women got done for saying something similar after 9/11,scumbagsFake grenfell victim held on suspicion of fraud
Claimed he lost his wife and child in the blaze but he lives 20 miles away and not got a wife or child
Fuck me that is low, what a horrible bloke claiming that
Are you remotely surprised?Fuck me that is low, what a horrible bloke claiming that
Absolutely not in the slightestAre you remotely surprised?
You've beaten @Tanzeylee by a nose.Absolutely not in the slightest
You've beaten @Tanzeylee by a nose.
I'm rather fed up with how much more information can make us more ignorant. What has actually failed? The polyethylene has limited combustibility so of course if you apply enough heat it will burn. Or is the category of "limited" a misnomer and it's less limited than thought? Have they tested non-combustible rockwool insulation to see if it is non-combustible?
And I'm still waiting for someone to say in public that once it gets outside the building fire will travel, usually up, even if the building is made of brick or concrete, and then weaken and crack windows or frames and break into rooms above (sometimes with explosive effect as it gets fresh oxygen). Flammable cladding may be an accelerant but it won't stop physics.
Internal sprinklers would stop fires from getting outside but I've not heard anyone say whether it's feasible (technically or cost) to have systems on the roof that would douse external fire (or sprinklers over each window).
And do you really think MPs or ministers wade through 84 pages of fire safety standards, and understand it? I'm not truing to exculpate politicians - and I hope I've got this right - but the previous Building Regs from 1991 had just 400 words on fire safety, and on the topic that now concerns us, they said:
"The external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." That's it. So while the "limited combustibility" get-out, and the vagueness over how to comply, will be a factor in the inquiry (and already), you can't just talk about "bloody awful legislation" that was miles better than what went before. The scandal is that MPs on the select committee were warning of the dangers.
I'm rather fed up with how much more information can make us more ignorant. What has actually failed? The polyethylene has limited combustibility so of course if you apply enough heat it will burn. Or is the category of "limited" a misnomer and it's less limited than thought? Have they tested non-combustible rockwool insulation to see if it is non-combustible?
And I'm still waiting for someone to say in public that once it gets outside the building fire will travel, usually up, even if the building is made of brick or concrete, and then weaken and crack windows or frames and break into rooms above (sometimes with explosive effect as it gets fresh oxygen). Flammable cladding may be an accelerant but it won't stop physics.
Internal sprinklers would stop fires from getting outside but I've not heard anyone say whether it's feasible (technically or cost) to have systems on the roof that would douse external fire (or sprinklers over each window).
Which council or construction firm would not use the cheapest legal material they could to complete any building, tunnel (etc, etc)? Expensive items are only used when demanded by the customer - e.g. a marble floor, seriously large windows, use of rare expensive hard woods (etc, etc).Times is running a front page story. The cladding used was to keep costs down. They have leaked documents etc. And this from a council that has healthy cash reserves. What goes to the heart of this is our culture of money and profit over everything else. Safety not so much. We hear it all the time about keeping costs down, squeezing out more 'efficiencies' on services that are already cut to the bone. Privatisation and making people re-apply for their own jobs. Lowest tenders getting the contract and cutting corners to make it work. It's become a souless mantra.
Playing politics? Corbyn says at PMQ that austerity means cuts to council inspections. Cue Tory outrage. But then May blames Blair for cladding and - out of ignorance I think rather than lying - says
"In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'."
That's not what the order did, but in any case it only changed the law for non-domestic premises. Outrage!
She actually had the cheek to refer to the coroner's report to the Lakanal fire and say the report criticised the regulatory reform order (which I don't think it did). Now that is despicable as the government did not act on the coroner's recommendations and Pickles' letter in response basically said he'd fulfilled his duty under the existing legislation including the regulatory order. You can judge for yourself but though he says "we are not complacent" it reads to me like a "Bog Off" letter. "Leave the building regs to the professionals"!
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ec-letter-from-rt-hon-eric-pickles-mp-20May2013.pdf
Doubt it. The BCA (British Construction Association) construction guidance document is the document that led to this disaster. If everyone is using it then group defence kicks in.Like Hilsborough, the truth will come out and people will get prison.