The Grenfell fire was I seem to recall caused by a domestic refrigerator catching fire, apparently despite the electrical safety standards that apply to refrigerators and other domestic appliances.

The Grenfell fire was I seem to recall caused by a domestic refrigerator catching fire, apparently despite the electrical safety standards that apply to refrigerators and other domestic appliances.

 

Yes, a Hotpoint (model FF175BP), very accurately brand named, all considering.

.

Yes, a Hotpoint (model FF175BP), very accurately brand named, all considering.

 

Ah thank you.

 

Fortunately there are few refrigerator fires per year, so no worries to some.

Fortunately there are few refrigerator fires per year, so no worries to some.

 

Across various brands the refrigeration fires have been mainly confined to Fridge/Freezers and this model happened to be one of them. Quite why that should be the case I've no idea.

.

Ah thank you.

 

Fortunately there are few refrigerator fires per year, so no worries to some.

Google claims that there are 300 fires a year in the UK caused by faulty refrigerators. Surprising really, you wouldn't think a vacuum pump would pose much risk.

Google claims that there are 300 fires a year in the UK caused by faulty refrigerators. Surprising really, you wouldn't think a vacuum pump would pose much risk.

Some refrigerants are flammable. Maybe they leaked and the caught light from the gas cooker or smoking/vaping.

The Grenfell fire was I seem to recall caused by a domestic refrigerator catching fire, apparently despite the electrical safety standards that apply to refrigerators and other domestic appliances.

 

Not cool. Fridges should be banned from flats.

 

 

Some refrigerants are flammable. Maybe they leaked and the caught light from the gas cooker or smoking/vaping.

 

Gas and vapes should be banned from flats too. All flats should be completely transparent with transparent furniture, and all occupants should be dressed in cling film and clear sellotape only, so we can see they're safe. Their X-rays imaged on walls every few seconds. Constant monitoring by snipers, to save the many.

 

Makers and sellers of ebikes which are not easy and cheap for owners to repair, must immediately be jailed for crimes against the environment.

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by guerney

60% is caused by safe battery packs?

I am assuming that some of the rest are being caused by incorrect chargers?

 

All the best, David

 

Are you saying you don't know? Are you making new laws based on assumptions, if so what are you assuming specifically? I prefer enacted laws be based on verifiable facts. I'm sure some measure of transparency regarding the process of whatever it is your group is up to, would be welcomed by pedelecers.

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by guerney

Disability charity says e-cycle bans are an "inappropriate, disproportionate and discriminatory" response to the low fire risk they represent

 

https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/disability-charity-says-e-cycle-bans-are-an-inappropriate-disproportionate-and

e-cycle bans

 

Petrol lobby in action.

Some refrigerants are flammable. Maybe they leaked and the caught light from the gas cooker or smoking/vaping.

a lot of fridge freezers in use today still run on isobutane (R600a) which has a flash point of 45degrees C. If for some reason debris clog the pipes, the pump will work harder to the point that it puts enough pressure to blow the pipes up and as it runs hotter than the flash point, your fridge freezer will explode.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62305qx946o

 

I heard years of Grenfell testimony. Here's why the disaster could have been prevented

 

By: Kate Lamble

 

She says at the beginning;

 

"To understand how a refurbishment could have created the possibility of such a disaster, we have to look at what underpinned all that work - the building regulations. When Grenfell was constructed, those regulations were set by an act of parliament.

 

In the 1980s, however, Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce government intervention. Regulations stopped listing precise rules, simply describing instead what the end result should be."

Google claims that there are 300 fires a year in the UK caused by faulty refrigerators. Surprising really, you wouldn't think a vacuum pump would pose much risk.

 

300 ?

 

Sounds like the risk of a refrigerator fire is far greater than the risk of a battery fire.

 

But only 300 refrigerator fires is a small number, so no worries maybe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62305qx946o

 

I heard years of Grenfell testimony. Here's why the disaster could have been prevented

 

By: Kate Lamble

 

She says at the beginning;

 

"To understand how a refurbishment could have created the possibility of such a disaster, we have to look at what underpinned all that work - the building regulations. When Grenfell was constructed, those regulations were set by an act of parliament.

 

In the 1980s, however, Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce government intervention. Regulations stopped listing precise rules, simply describing instead what the end result should be."

 

Maybe instead of pointing the finger at someone who left office in 1990, it might be more pertinent to look at who was in power after her leaving and more pertinently still, at the arms length body, the Building Research Establishment who are responsible for testing and certifying building materials as fit for use. Also perhaps, the people in the Civil Service such as Brian Martin who, as I understand it was in charge of those regulations and who knew that the Raynobond type cladding could cause fires to spread in tall buildings and had responded to messages from concerned experts by saying something to the effect of, "Where are the bodies".

 

Also - the manufacturers of the products knew and had discussed the hazard and kept it secret and had discussed in emails the impact such information would have on sales if it got out.

 

It is hard to believe that anyone who had even a passing acquaintance with the facts of this case as have been brought out by the enquiry would make the remark you did up there and present it as if that was the cause.

 

The failures were enormous and blame should fall on a lot of heads.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62305qx946o

 

I heard years of Grenfell testimony. Here's why the disaster could have been prevented

 

By: Kate Lamble

 

She says at the beginning;

 

"To understand how a refurbishment could have created the possibility of such a disaster, we have to look at what underpinned all that work - the building regulations. When Grenfell was constructed, those regulations were set by an act of parliament.

 

In the 1980s, however, Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce government intervention. Regulations stopped listing precise rules, simply describing instead what the end result should be."

 

I first heard Kate Lamble on More or Less and she is an excellent forensic journalist

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00201xv is well worth a listen (the Peter Apps book Show Me the Bodies: How We Let Grenfell Happen https://amzn.eu/d/1F8OjdS is excellent too

 

The 2nd bit of the Grenfell report is due very soon, the Telegraph / Spectator / Spiked will be lining up copium opinion pieces why it's conclusions are wrong and why Public Inquiries are a waste of money

Edited September 3, 20241 yr by Peter.Bridge

300 ?

 

Sounds like the risk of a refrigerator fire is far greater than the risk of a battery fire.

 

But only 300 refrigerator fires is a small number, so no worries maybe.

The fire risk of fridge freezer is about 10 per million.

The fire risk of fridge freezer is about 10 per million.

 

I can put battery in a shed. I can't do the same with fridge.

I can put battery in a shed. I can't do the same with fridge.

it's the fridge freezer type that is more at risk.

it's the fridge freezer type that is more at risk.

 

Still I can't put it in a shed, so eventual fire might be deadly.

I first heard Kate Lamble on More or Less and she is an excellent forensic journalist

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00201xv

 

Indeed, and its very clear from the series that she has a good understanding of the details of the evidence of the case.

 

The part of Maggies speech about the need for 'de-regulation' is in Episode 2 05:00.

Still I can't put it in a shed, so eventual fire might be deadly.

Does a fridge burn with the same intensity / explosivity and give off the same toxic fumes as a battery?

Maybe instead of pointing the finger at someone who left office in 1990, it might be more pertinent to look at who was in power after her leaving and more pertinently still, at the arms length body, the Building Research Establishment who are responsible for testing and certifying building materials as fit for use.

If I understand correctly, Raynobond PE was used in cassette form in Grenfell Tower. That product wasn't certified. Raynobond PE in rivet form received class B certification in France. The architects and builders should have use rivet form instead of cassette form. So whose fault was it?

 

Indeed, and its very clear from the series that she has a good understanding of the details of the evidence of the case.

 

The part of Maggies speech about the need for 'de-regulation' is in Episode 2 05:00.

 

For fks sake!

 

Maggie Maggie Maggie!

 

Are you for real?

 

Since she left office in 1990, we had the Major government, then thirteen years of Labour with Blair and Brown and then a coalition Con / Lib government and then, Cameron.

 

The idea that this disaster would not have happened had not Thatcher made a speech way back when and nobody else who was in power for decades after that could have seen the issue if it was obvious is absolutely mad - oh - and pretty stupid too.

 

THEY ALL FAILED, but in particular they were ALL deceived by well paid people whose job it was to bring expertise to the issue of building safet.

 

These were obviously.

 

• Civil Service experts in safety who were responsible for building regulations - people like Brian Martin who famously asked, "where are the bodies?" when the fire risk was brought to his attention after more than one terrible tall building fire abroad.
  
• The Building Research Executive, whose responsibility was to test and certify the safety of materials and methods of construction. They had tested and found the material a fire risk. It failed their tests. They did nothing.
  
• Manufacturers of the cladding who KNEW it was dangerous, but not only hid that fact, they discussed the impact on their sales figures of the knowledge they had if it ever got out.
  

 

We have had a failures at every turn, but you think Thatcher who was out of office 26 years before the disaster was the problem..... REALLY????

If I understand correctly, Raynobond PE was used in cassette form in Grenfell Tower. That product wasn't certified. Raynobond PE in rivet form received class B certification in France. The architects and builders should have use rivet form instead of cassette form. So whose fault was it?

 

 

I don't know the answer to that, nor did I know the information you just presented. As a layman - I would say we depend on building regulations and product certification. Architects and builders must follow those, and after and during erection, building inspectors come to see how the job is being done. On paper the system ought to be foolproof, but as always, that depends upon the people who certify safety of product and methods and the people who write and apply the regulations through inspection to be doing their jobs. There seems - especially in the case of the BRE and Martin at the civil service end, to have been an appalling failure in their duty. It is almost criminal negligence - probably actual criminal negligence and possibly misconduct in public office for Martin.

 

Politicians generally know nothing about any of this stuff. They utterly depend on the people who advise them to tell the truth and be vigilant and diligent about what they advise and allow when they have regulatory functions.

I don't know the answer to that, nor did I know the information you just presented. As a layman - I would say we depend on building regulations and product certification. Architects and builders must follow those, and after and during erection, building inspectors come to see how the job is being done. On paper the system ought to be foolproof, but as always, that depends upon the people who certify safety of product and methods and the people who write and apply the regulations through inspection to be doing their jobs. There seems - especially in the case of the BRE and Martin at the civil service end, to have been an appalling failure in their duty. It is almost criminal negligence - probably actual criminal negligence and possibly misconduct in public office for Martin.

 

Politicians generally know nothing about any of this stuff. They utterly depend on the people who advise them to tell the truth and be vigilant and diligent about what they advise and allow when they have regulatory functions.

It's not the case that the architects and contractors do not know what they are buying.

it's usually the cost cutting motivation that encourages people to choose inferior products while keeping their fingers crossed that disaster will not strike.