Agreed and understood, but two night fire wardens hired per block and equipped with mobiles and portable sirens would have been sufficient safeguard. Also the five blocks are in a group in sight of each other, so ten pairs of eyes on watch.

 

Not only far cheaper than using hotels but also far kinder to the residents.

.

.. On reflection I want to revise my previous comment , All those high rise buildings in the UK , particularly those whose names have been published are now intrinsically much less safe than they were a fortnight ago. Careless talk costs lives, and this is a case in point where vulnerabilities should not have been published before remedies being made available. A few firewardens unfortunately won't cut it.

.. On reflection I want to revise my previous comment , All those high rise buildings in the UK , particularly those whose names have been published are now intrinsically much less safe than they were a fortnight ago. Careless talk costs lives, and this is a case in point where vulnerabilities should not have been published before remedies being made available. A few firewardens unfortunately won't cut it.

 

Since there's been a 100% failure of the new more stringent tests, publishing the tower names hasn't made any difference in this respect. All cladded towers are potential targets now.

 

But I still insist fire wardens are more than adequate as a safeguard, since they not only protect against a cladding fire but all other sources of fire. In respect of Camden which was what I was posting about, we are speaking of a three week period for the cladding removal.

 

Where accidental cause is concerned, given that Grenfell was one cladding fire event in decades, what is the chance of a repeat nearby within a three week period? It's so vanishingly small it simply doesn't have to be considered.

.

Since there's been a 100% failure of the new more stringent tests, publishing the tower names hasn't made any difference in this respect. All cladded towers are potential targets now.

 

But I still insist fire wardens are more than adequate as a safeguard, since they not only protect against a cladding fire but all other sources of fire. In respect of Camden which was what I was posting about, we are speaking of a three week period for the cladding removal.

 

Where accidental cause is concerned, given that Grenfell was one cladding fire event in decades, what is the chance of a repeat nearby within a three week period? It's so vanishingly small it simply doesn't have to be considered.

.

.. I was not referring to accidental causes.

.. I was not referring to accidental causes.

 

I understood that, but still insist the fire wardens I specified would protect against a deliberate act too.

 

Logically residents during the cladding removal three weeks would be far safer than they would be afterwards with no fire wardens.

 

Just think about that three weeks:

 

1) First the scaffolders encasing the building.

 

2) The workmen there each day doing the removal.

 

3) The rapidly diminishing area of cladding.

 

4) Ten pairs of fire warden's eyes through all other times.

 

5) The protection against all other fire sources given by all those scaffolders, workmen's and fire warden's eyes.

 

It would be the safest period ever in the life of the building.

.

Another point that will have to be explored is just what did the Fire Brigade see on arrival.

Some accounts say that they entered the flat that was on fire, extinguished the blaze and were preparing to leave before the external fire was noticed.

Obviously, in future high rise fires, the first thing they will check is the exterior cladding as well as tackling the fire.

Next, just how does this cladding burn?

i.e. does it go up like petrol soaked paper, or does it smoulder for some time unnoticed before catastrophically bursting into flame.

i.e. does it go up like petrol soaked paper, or does it smoulder for some time unnoticed before catastrophically bursting into flame.

 

It must be very slow reacting to fire, for the simple reason that it passed all previous fire resistance tests.

 

The government have acknowledged today that the new tests have been deliberately been made more stringent, as I posted earlier, moving the goalposts.

 

The betting is that they are just applying flame for as long as it takes to get it to ignite into flame, rather than just for a specified time period which is the usual way.

.

.

 

The betting is that they are just applying flame for as long as it takes to get it to ignite into flame, rather than just for a specified time period which is the usual way.

.

Having struggled to light more than a few barbecues in my time I suspect that this foam is similar in that it does not readily ignite, but once it gets going there is little that can stop it.

It must be very slow reacting to fire, for the simple reason that it passed all previous fire resistance tests.

 

The government have acknowledged today that the new tests have been deliberately been made more stringent, as I posted earlier, moving the goalposts.

 

The betting is that they are just applying flame for as long as it takes to get it to ignite into flame, rather than just for a specified time period which is the usual way.

.

 

The BBC are reporting this as all cladding failing fire safety tests. The implication being that this has always been the case. The truth is that this is a modified and more severe tests, conceived after the tower fire had taken place. It's misleading.

The problem may involve the leakage of the flammable isobutane refrigerant gas into the interior of the fridge which is then ignited by an arc, possibly from the thermostat. A similar effect could be caused by the householder storing flammable substances or aerosols with hydrocarbon propellants in the refrigerator or by using an aerosol cleaner on the interior. Hydrocarbons were almost universally adopted by manufacturers after the phase-out of CFCs in the 90s. While many in the industry preferred R134a, environmental groups and Greenpeace in particular, championed hydrocarbons as the natural alternative as they are non-ozone-depleting and non-global warming. Despite industry concerns as to its flammability, isobutane has become the standard domestic refrigerator gas and has become popular in certain plug-in commercial refrigerators. Only last month Waitrose announced that it was to use hydrocarbons in the refrigeration systems of all its new stores and refurbs. Greenpeace developed Greenfreeze technology in 1992 utilising isobutane and propane as refrigerants and cyclopentane for producing the insulating foam. According to the environmental group, the technology is currently used in over 300 million refrigerators worldwide. While these incidents involve fridges in the UK, ACR News is also investigating similar incidents in Europe and as far away as Iceland and South Africa. ACRIB said it was monitoring the situation in association with all refrigeration manufacturers.

 

But, would a chip pan fire had been as damaging ??

Gordon Bennet !!!

removing cladding is the wrong tactic.

There are so many 'chimneys' in any building where flames and smoke can funnel, what are we going to do? add fire barriers to all the risers?

The right tactic is to install sprinklers.

Or learn from the Scottish...

 

How 1999 Scottish tower block fire led to regulation change

 

Following the Grenfell Tower, 60 high-rise buildings in 25 local authorities in England have failed fire safety tests so far. But no local authority or housing association tower blocks in Scotland have been found to use the same kind of cladding.

 

In Scotland, a change to building regulations in 2005 made it mandatory for builders to ensure that any external cladding "inhibited" fire spreading. The new regulations were introduced following a fatal fire in a Scottish tower block in 1999.

The problem may involve the leakage of the flammable isobutane refrigerant gas into the interior of the fridge which is then ignited by an arc, possibly from the thermostat. A similar effect could be caused by the householder storing flammable substances or aerosols with hydrocarbon propellants in the refrigerator or by using an aerosol cleaner on the interior. Hydrocarbons were almost universally adopted by manufacturers after the phase-out of CFCs in the 90s. While many in the industry preferred R134a, environmental groups and Greenpeace in particular, championed hydrocarbons as the natural alternative as they are non-ozone-depleting and non-global warming. Despite industry concerns as to its flammability, isobutane has become the standard domestic refrigerator gas and has become popular in certain plug-in commercial refrigerators. Only last month Waitrose announced that it was to use hydrocarbons in the refrigeration systems of all its new stores and refurbs. Greenpeace developed Greenfreeze technology in 1992 utilising isobutane and propane as refrigerants and cyclopentane for producing the insulating foam. According to the environmental group, the technology is currently used in over 300 million refrigerators worldwide. While these incidents involve fridges in the UK, ACR News is also investigating similar incidents in Europe and as far away as Iceland and South Africa. ACRIB said it was monitoring the situation in association with all refrigeration manufacturers.

 

But, would a chip pan fire had been as damaging ??

 

A well structured and considered posting, but it is not the butane or pentane in the compressor which is the significant risk but that inside the foam. I just checked the amount in my hotpoint fridge 2.5 grams and in my freezer 5 grams. There would be more in a butane lighter . There are newer compressors designed with carbon dioxide as the working fluid.

We all remember when deep frying in oil over a gas flame was the cause of multiple fires, the thermostat controlled electric modelsat low cost put an end to that practice.

A well structured and considered posting, but it is not the butane or pentane in the compressor which is the significant risk but that inside the foam. I just checked the amount in my hotpoint fridge 2.5 grams and in my freezer 5 grams. There would be more in a butane lighter . There are newer compressors designed with carbon dioxide as the working fluid.

We all remember when deep frying in oil over a gas flame was the cause of multiple fires, the thermostat controlled electric modelsat low cost put an end to that practice.

 

Thanks.

Any fire needs a source of ignition , fuel and oxygen. The isobutane provides initial fuel for fire to start with some as yet unknown ignition point.( spark)

Only after fire has started will the foam be problematic. A spark would not ignite the foam. The amount of gas is fairly irrelevant, imagine size of fire you could start with cigarette lighter. Other issue about Butane is it is heavier than air, and will congregate in base of fridge. ( I have encountered this on boats running LPG ,where propane builds up overtime inn bilges and then bilge pump clicks in, igniting the gas. This is far more of a problem than with petrol vapour.( but can happen with both)

I,m not blaming fridge but in this case it seems it transpired to line up Tillsons Swiss cheese holes, it seems to me however that almost any internal fire with any substantial amount of fuel could have triggered the turn of events.

There are plenty of substances in households which make viable fuels.

A report I read suggested designers had assumed high intensity fires ( plenty of fuel) would only be encountered on outside of building. ( ie car fire,wheelie bin etc etc) I wonder if this was flawed thinking ???

PS. I,m only assuming Isobutane is heavier than air ? Either way its dangerous to use in fridges that will eventually leak near ignition points.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Zlatan

flecc pointed out some time ago that the fire could have propagated through cooker hood fume extraction ducts.

In fact, most catastrophic fires are not due to just one cause but a concurrence of more than one mistake.

Years ago, one of my clients had a printing firm. A faulty PSU on a PC sitting under a desk set fire to the desk, the desk set fire to the window frame etc.. you can guess the rest. The chance that a faulty computer PSU setting fire to a desk is very small. Nobody could imagine that window frames could catch fire etc. so the building did not have sprinklers.

flecc pointed out some time ago that the fire could have propagated through cooker hood fume extraction ducts.

In fact, most catastrophic fires are not due to just one cause but a concurrence of more than one mistake.

Years ago, one of my clients had a printing firm. A faulty PSU on a PC sitting under a desk set fire to the desk, the desk set fire to the window frame etc.. you can guess the rest. The chance that a faulty computer PSU setting fire to a desk is very small. Nobody could imagine that window frames could catch fire etc. so the building did not have sprinklers.

 

Agreed, but should we still be buying fridges utilising isobutane, fridges we inevitably neglect that sit there year after year probably corroding and eventually leaking inflamable gas around switch gear ???

Even before this event explosions and fires resulting from this are well documented. Personally I,d rather go back to Freon.

Thanks.

Any fire needs a source of ignition , fuel and oxygen. The isobutane provides initial fuel for fire to start with some as yet unknown ignition point.( spark)

Only after fire has started will the foam be problematic. A spark would not ignite the foam. The amount of gas is fairly irrelevant, imagine size of fire you could start with cigarette lighter. Other issue about Butane is it is heavier than air, and will congregate in base of fridge. ( I have encountered this on boats running LPG ,where propane builds up overtime inn bilges and then bilge pump clicks in, igniting the gas. This is far more of a problem than with petrol vapour.( but can happen with both)

I,m not blaming fridge but in this case it seems it transpired to line up Tillsons Swiss cheese holes, it seems to me however that almost any internal fire with any substantial amount of fuel could have triggered the turn of events.

There are plenty of substances in households which make viable fuels.

A report I read suggested designers had assumed high intensity fires ( plenty of fuel) would only be encountered on outside of building. ( ie car fire,wheelie bin etc etc) I wonder if this was flawed thinking ???

PS. I,m only assuming Isobutane is heavier than air ? Either way its dangerous to use in fridges that will eventually leak near ignition points.

Butane is heavier than air so will flow downhill. But R134 is also very dangerous, if it is subject to heat as it decomposes into I believe phosgene gas. There are safety warnings about smoking cigarettes close to it, not the fire risk but the poison risk.

But I take your point that even a minute amount of a fuel can ignite.

Ben Okri, a man with a gift, has written this:

 

daily-vid-ben-okri-grenfell-tower-fire-poem

 

Tom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40434741

 

now that is a fkn joke !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40434741

 

now that is a fkn joke !

 

Afraid it isn't Soundwave. Once temperature is above a certain point all trace of human remains disappears. Its going to be more of an investigation for missing people than actually determining who has died. Yes, its awful but I don't think , on this issue, government are covering anything up. Just being very cautious..but the more cynical could easily see a conspiracy ??

Afraid it isn't Soundwave. Once temperature is above a certain point all trace of human remains disappears. Its going to be more of an investigation for missing people than actually determining who has died. Yes, its awful but I don't think , on this issue, government are covering anything up. Just being very cautious..but the more cynical could easily see a conspiracy ??

It isn't like the government does such things is it?

Social media has lots of very upset commentators this morning as we begin to understand that this new alliance of far-right extremists means no change to tory dogma in their class war against the underprivileged.

 

 

"And they cheered.

 

They cheered the fact that they voted to continue to make Public Sector workers worse off year on year. A week ago they were praising the firefighters, ambulance crews and police following the recent tragedies up and down the country. Firemen who had carried dead children out of Grenfell Tower and then watched someone else plummet 20 floors onto concrete. Paramedics who had to zip up body bags of those blown to pieces in Manchester and who tried and failed to stop people bleeding to death on London Bridge. The policemen and women at the scenes of these horrific crimes, as scared and upset as those they were helping. Today, these amazing people are being condemned to at least two more years of capped wages. Last week's hollow words a distant memory. Well done, all of you who voted Conservative. You allowed this to happen. Teachers and TAs, nurses and doctors, prison officers, council staff and emergency service workers are already at breaking point. They have had enough. Now say "if you don't like it, leave!" Go on, I dare you!Leave to what? A job at the bottom of the ladder after working their way up it? A job with no security and a zero hours contract? Or no job at all?"We're all in this together!" Said Dodgy Dave. Like f**k are we. You pricks award yourself handsome pay rises way above inflation year after year. You claim stupid amounts as perks while cutting disability benefits and killing people. The bankers and big business bosses are allowed to continue earning individual bonuses that would pay for a dozen nurses for a year, but that's ok isn't it? You're alright aren't you?

 

I'm alright, Jack. F**k the rest of you! It's the Conservative way.

 

And they cheered."

 

Tom

After the knee-jerk reaction by the tory government to the Grenfell Tower disaster, this is how the tory government plans to address the matters arising from tower block safety inspections:

 

 

Tom

Edited June 29, 20178 yr by oldtom

It isn't like the government does such things is it?

 

Yes, they do. They are using the uncertainty to hide real figures , putting oweness on Fire Service to prove an occupant died in flat is wrong, but its what is happening.

It seems there are no figures for occupancy but I,m fairly sure some body could calculate a reasonable figure...ie check occupancy of similar buildings at that time of day...but no Fire Service have to sift through every room...and not finding remains proves nothing...doesn't prove nobody died...just means remains could have been incinerated.

We,ll never know real figure.