Brexit, for once some facts.

[Mal69]

The situation is such that we can't protect everyone against every conceivable danger all of the time. It's a case of providing protection against an event, balanced with the probability of that event occurring.

Talk is cheap where human lives are concerned, probability talk does not help when an event that has killed people happens, spend the money, do not go cheap on safety, be it a fridge, a washing machine or a new tower block, spend the money and forget the probability, swallow up some of the increased costs and take less profit, profit is profit, even when it is less.

I read about this all the time. The thing about increasing profits year on year is leading to people losing their jobs and the quality of the product is going down, I just do not see why so many companies cannot accept less profit, there is a quantity over quality attitude at so many companies, the shares must go up, the workers must be axed or wages must be driven down, all because the profit margins are not high enough.

£350m profit is not enough, next year they must make £500m profit, axe branches, get rid of some of the workers, change conditions such as at B&Q and give loyal workers less than they are used to because they want higher profits, point being they should accept a good profit and not always strive for higher and higher at the expense of safety or workers pay, you can have quality workmanship and safety and still make a profit, the trouble in our modern society is companies are greedy, they want bigger profits year after year because the stock market culture demands this of them.

 

[oldgroaner]

The should-er squad are always quick to appear after such incidents as the Grenfell tower tragedy. Should-er done this, should-er done that etc ect.

The situation is such that we can't protect everyone against every conceivable danger all of the time. It's a case of providing protection against an event, balanced with the probability of that event occurring. For example, a meteorite hit on a tower block could be catastrophic and cause the deaths of thousands of people. We could build in anti-meteorite protection to mitigate the consequences of such an event, but we choose not to. We choose not to on the basis of cost versus the likelihood of such a thing happening.

The same principle will have been applied to the Grenfell tower block. The panels will have been deemed to provide sufficient fire protection against an external ignition source such as a bin fire or car fire. I suspect that no one would have conceived of a situation whereby the ignition source would be applied to the reverse side of the panel. A rather unusual combination of circumstances, with a very low probability of all coming together, have conspired to bring about this terrible incident. Like most disasters, it is never one factor alone which causes it. In this case, we think it was a faulty fridge, AND a path for the fire to breach the fabric of the building, AND an air gap, AND inadequate fire resistance on the reverse of the panel, AND insufficient fire early warning, AND incorrect escape procedures. I've probably missed other factors, but this is just to give you an idea.

Each AND is a probability multiplier as well. So if two events carry a 1 in 1000 probability of occurring and rely on each other to bring about a failing, the overall probability of failure will be 1 in 1 million.

Grenfell tower is an unfortunate tragedy caused by a series of events, just like an airliner crash or similar. There will be a cause or weak link in the chain of events identified and measures will be taken to reduce the probability of a second similar incident. What is not acceptable is for a clown such as John McDonald to use words like "murdered" when talking about those who died in the blaze. This idiotic and contemptible ruse is not helpful and McDonald's only interest in Grenfell tower is to whip up a phoney class war in order to serve his own pathetic purposes.

Utter Bullshine tillson it was always impressed on the members of the R&D department where I worked that it was our responsibility to forsee every possible scenario that would expose the users of our products to risk of harm.
It is simply stupid for any company not to adopt that attitude if they wish to survive.
If you work somewhere that doesn't do that I urge you to leave and find a better company to work for.
Not having the wit to see that the panels were vulnerable for a fire at the rear is so obvious a child wouldn't fall for it, nor would using a plastic back panel on a fridge freezer contining isobutane be acceptable to anyone with half a brain.
Grenfell tower was caused by a series of misjudgements and the urge to save costs without thinking of the possible consequences.
profit came before safety, which is a Tory maxim at all times.
It isn't a class war when the Torys actually have a department devoted to reducing red tape,? didn't you read my post?

You are defending what amounts to manslaughter by dereliction of duty of care.

 

[tillson]

The above is all very twee and tiresome.

Life is full of probability balanced against cost. It's accepted that 1 in X number of aircraft flights will crash killing everyone on board. That is acceptable because if you protected absolutely against every eventuality, it would be too expensive to fly. Roads are dangerous, we accept the odds when we make a road journey. My old house has a huge amount of ancient & well seasoned wood in its construction making it more dangerous than a modern house. But I still live there because I accept the risk.

Grenfell tower is like any other disaster. The mistakes and errors made will be identified, rectification will follow and if neglect or malpractice is identified, the police will take action.

I think there is a lot of hysterical reaction taking place. People need to calm down.

 

[oldgroaner]

The above is all very twee and tiresome.

Life is full of probability balanced against cost. It's accepted that 1 in X number of aircraft flights will crash killing everyone on board. That is acceptable because if you protected absolutely against every eventuality, it would be too expensive to fly. Roads are dangerous, we accept the odds when we bake a road journey. My old house has a huge amount of ancient & well seasoned wood in its construction making it more dangerous than a modern house. But I still live there because I accept the risk.

Grenfell tower is like any other disaster. The mistakes and errors made will be identified, rectification will follow and if neglect or malpractice is identified, the police will take action.

I think there is a lot of hysterical reaction taking place. People need to calm down.

And some need to stop trying to justify stupidity and greed

 

[Danidl]

The should-er squad are always quick to appear after such incidents as the Grenfell tower tragedy. Should-er done this, should-er done that etc ect.

The situation is such that we can't protect everyone against every conceivable danger all of the time. It's a case of providing protection against an event, balanced with the probability of that event occurring. For example, a meteorite hit on a tower block could be catastrophic and cause the deaths of thousands of people. We could build in anti-meteorite protection to mitigate the consequences of such an event, but we choose not to. We choose not to on the basis of cost versus the likelihood of such a thing happening.

The same principle will have been applied to the Grenfell tower block. The panels will have been deemed to provide sufficient fire protection against an external ignition source such as a bin fire or car fire. I suspect that no one would have conceived of a situation whereby the ignition source would be applied to the reverse side of the panel. A rather unusual combination of circumstances, with a very low probability of all coming together, have conspired to bring about this terrible incident. Like most disasters, it is never one factor alone which causes it. In this case, we think it was a faulty fridge, AND a path for the fire to breach the fabric of the building, AND an air gap, AND inadequate fire resistance on the reverse of the panel, AND insufficient fire early warning, AND incorrect escape procedures. I've probably missed other factors, but this is just to give you an idea.

Each AND is a probability multiplier as well. So if two events carry a 1 in 1000 probability of occurring and rely on each other to bring about a failing, the overall probability of failure will be 1 in 1 million.

Grenfell tower is an unfortunate tragedy caused by a series of events, just like an airliner crash or similar. There will be a cause or weak link in the chain of events identified and measures will be taken to reduce the probability of a second similar incident. What is not acceptable is for a clown such as John McDonald to use words like "murdered" when talking about those who died in the blaze. This idiotic and contemptible ruse is not helpful and McDonald's only interest in Grenfell tower is to whip up a phoney class war in order to serve his own pathetic purposes.

Sorry tilson that won't wash.Your first paragraph is fine. It is not feasible to protect against all contingencies. All engineering is compromise . A concrete aeroplane won't burn , but neither will it fly.
But then your posting goes down hill. As you must be aware, there are classes of combustible materials. Those which are inert, those which will degrade under temperature rise and will eventually decompose and carry ignition, those which can support ignition up to the highly ignitable. The clue is in the name fire rating. Now the construction technique can affect fire performance. Fire performance is a long established engineering discipline, and architecture firms and engineering consultancies are expected to be familiar with its principles and current practice.
The UK has well regarded engineering expertise in the BSI, the BRE etc and they have guidelines. Mainland Europe has plenty of similar. Good quality information is available. By leaving the EU the UK is turning it's back on this shared resource.
If constructors and clients choose to use a philosophy of what can I get away with rather than what is current best practice, then you will have more and more disasters.

 

[tillson]

Talk is cheap where human lives are concerned, probability talk does not help when an event that has killed people happens, spend the money, do not go cheap on safety, be it a fridge, a washing machine or a new tower block, spend the money and forget the probability, swallow up some of the increased costs and take less profit, profit is profit, even when it is less.

I read about this all the time. The thing about increasing profits year on year is leading to people losing their jobs and the quality of the product is going down, I just do not see why so many companies cannot accept less profit, there is a quantity over quality attitude at so many companies, the shares must go up, the workers must be axed or wages must be driven down, all because the profit margins are not high enough.

£350m profit is not enough, next year they must make £500m profit, axe branches, get rid of some of the workers, change conditions such as at B&Q and give loyal workers less than they are used to because they want higher profits, point being they should accept a good profit and not always strive for higher and higher at the expense of safety or workers pay, you can have quality workmanship and safety and still make a profit, the trouble in our modern society is companies are greedy, they want bigger profits year after year because the stock market culture demands this of them.

So who's going to pay to protect everyone against every danger. Are you prepared to pay £10000 to fly to Spain on your jollies for instance? Or are you going to accept a higher, but still minute level of risk and board a sleazy jet? My guess is sleazy Jet every time. This principle of risk v cost is prevalent in all that we do. We all make these choices every day.

 

[Georgew]

The wisdom of hindsight and how gracious of you.

I still think that the concept of BREXIT has potential to yield benefits for the UK, but the people who put themselves forward to lead it have fallen short of the mark. I think we need to step back and take another look and for those who are leading to state what they are striving for and how they intend to get there.

If this was hindsight then it was apparently shared by over 60% of the Scottish electorate.
One look at those leading the Brexit leave movement was enough to convince me that it was brazen opportunism.
May I digress.......would you be interested in buying a bridge?

 

[tillson]

And some need to stop trying to justify stupidity and greed

Would you pay £10000 to fly to a European destination on an aircraft that was safer than one of the commercial operators flying there today?

No you wouldn't. You would accept the slightly enhanced risk based on cost saving. So there you have it.

 

[Georgew]

......................................................... For example, a meteorite hit on a tower block could be catastrophic and cause the deaths of thousands of people. We could build in anti-meteorite protection to mitigate the consequences of such an event, but we choose not to. We choose not to on the basis of cost versus the likelihood of such a thing happening......................................<snip>

You are seriously comparing the risk of a fire in a Tower block with that of it being hit by a meteor strike.....................good heavens.

Perhaps a wee lie-down in a darkened room is called for.

 

[tillson]

Sorry tilson that won't wash.Your first paragraph is fine. It is not feasible to protect against all contingencies. All engineering is compromise . A concrete aeroplane won't burn , but neither will it fly.
But then your posting goes down hill

Well that's reality I'm afraid.

A disaster like Grenfell is caused by a series of events, never one factor alone. In aviation terms, they call it the Swiss cheese affect. If you build a wall of Swiss cheeses, the probability is that somewhere, all the holes will line up and allow a stray arrow through. You can never stop it from occurring, but you can learn from previous errors and try to reduce the number of holes.

Sorry to hear that you don't understand this principle.

 

[oldtom]

That, 'Tillson', is nothing short of a defence of people who, at one given point in time, had only one job to do. Those individuals who had to consider fire safety had to be satisfied on very few counts:

1) Fire escape routes

2) Fire-fighting provisions, eg, water hoses, sprinklers, etc.

3) Construction materials

These high-rise apartment blocks were not uncharted territory as the USA, the obvious example, had been using skyscraper building techniques for decades before we began.

While I understand your point about risk factor consideration, politico-economic decisions were made in regard to people safety which would have been unacceptable in many commercial situations; large department stores, warehouses and so on.

To not question builders or suppliers about their choice of materials would be negligence in my view so, either those with responsibility for the safety of the people who would ultimately live in high-rise blocks were negligent or they were lied to by the people who supplied the materials or the designers who disregarded the provision of sprinklers and alternative escape routes.

The evidence which has emerged about the cladding selected for the blocks is devastating in as much as there was a clear choice of different levels of fire retardancy and the cost differential was small, the cheapest being the least useful in that regard. As for the test procedures such materials were subjected to at the time in question, that becomes rather irrelevant in the light of the weak/average/best scenario in which all were subjected to the same testing method. Who said or advised, 'Let's just go with the cheapest!'?

It was always inevitable that a major fire in such buildings would present massive difficulties for the firefighters and rescue agencies - even the least technically-minded understood that back then - so there should be no excuse for those whose job it was to ensure safety. They failed through ignorance or negligence and therefore I believe John McDonnell is absolutely right in describing the Grenfell tragedy as tantamount to murder.

The knee-jerk reaction by the current government is simply ridiculous; it's an example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Tom

 

[oldtom]

We seem to have started discussing Grenfell in the 'Brexit' thread - I don't mind as it's all politics anyway although tories love to say we shouldn't politicise these things.

Tom

 

[tillson]

You are seriously comparing the risk of a fire in a Tower block with that of it being hit by a meteor strike.....................good heavens.

Perhaps a wee lie-down in a darkened room is called for.

No, you have made a schoolboy reading error.

The sentiment is that buildings are at risk of meteor strikes, but we choose not to do anything about it because the risk is so small. You see? I didn't actually suggest that we protect against such things.

In the case of Grenfell, we didn't protect against a fridge catching fire AND the fridge burning through to the outside AND there being an air gap AND the back of the panel being flammable AND the fire evacuation procedure being wrong AND inadequate warning systems. All of these things had to come together to create the disaster, not just the panels on there own. The panels in isolation are not dangerous. They become dangerous when all the other events are added into the mix. Just like the Swiss cheese example, each one of the factors I have listed above represents a hole in the cheese and the removal of any one factor could have saved many lives.

 

[tillson]

That, 'Tillson', is nothing short of a defence of people who, at one given point in time, had only one job to do. Those individuals who had to consider fire safety had to be satisfied on very few counts:

1) Fire escape routes

2) Fire-fighting provisions, eg, water hoses, sprinklers, etc.

3) Construction materials

These high-rise apartment blocks were not uncharted territory as the USA, the obvious example, had been using skyscraper building techniques for decades before we began.

While I understand your point about risk factor consideration, politico-economic decisions were made in regard to people safety which would have been unacceptable in many commercial situations; large department stores, warehouses and so on.

To not question builders or suppliers about their choice of materials would be negligence in my view so, either those with responsibility for the safety of the people who would ultimately live in high-rise blocks were negligent or they were lied to by the people who supplied the materials or the designers who disregarded the provision of sprinklers and alternative escape routes.

The evidence which has emerged about the cladding selected for the blocks is devastating in as much as there was a clear choice of different levels of fire retardancy and the cost differential was small, the cheapest being the least useful in that regard. As for the test procedures such materials were subjected to at the time in question, that becomes rather irrelevant in the light of the weak/average/best scenario in which all were subjected to the same testing method. Who said or advised, 'Let's just go with the cheapest!'?

It was always inevitable that a major fire in such buildings would present massive difficulties for the firefighters and rescue agencies - even the least technically-minded understood that back then - so there should be excuse for those whose job it was to ensure safety. They failed through ignorance or negligence and therefore I believe John McDonnell is absolutely right in describing the Grenfell tragedy as tantamount to murder.

The knee-jerk reaction by the current government is simply ridiculous; it's an example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Tom

Yes, some good points in there which I totally agree with. If people are found to have been negligent and overlooked known historical risk factors for financial or reckless reasons, then that is a different story and I hope that they receive the appropriate level of punishment.

 

[flecc]

Life is full of probability balanced against cost. It's accepted that 1 in X number of aircraft flights will crash killing everyone on board. That is acceptable because if you protected absolutely against every eventuality, it would be too expensive to fly. Roads are dangerous, we accept the odds when we bake a road journey. My old house has a huge amount of ancient & well seasoned wood in its construction making it more dangerous than a modern house. But I still live there because I accept the risk.

Grenfell tower is like any other disaster. The mistakes and errors made will be identified, rectification will follow and if neglect or malpractice is identified, the police will take action.

I think there is a lot of hysterical reaction taking place. People need to calm down.

On this one I fully agree with Tillson. These claddings have been used safely all over the country over many years and they have passed their routine tests. Clearly there are different tests now being carried out to give different results, simply because all concerned are now trying to cover their backs against future events.

I've heard a lot of nonsense about residents warning about fire risks, but the truth is that none of them mentioned cladding in this connection because they had no idea it could be a problem. The issues they raised were completely different, so even if all their concerns had been addressed, Grenfell Tower would still have gone up in flames.

The fact is that anything can burn, iron filings even if enough oxygen is present, so absolute protection against risk is impossible. As Tillson posted, we have to compromise and through experience find the acceptable level of risk versus cost.

Until now the testing and risk level on tower block claddings has been satisfactory. Now as a result of a major fire we've found it's not, so we've already upped the testing standard which is naturally failing most existing installations. The eventual cost will be astronomic and deduct from our house building program which is already severely in deficit. So we'll end up with a relatively small number of people safer in theory but not in practice, and much larger numbers than now without homes. The latter might not think that a good outcome.
.

 

[Danidl]

So who's going to pay to protect everyone against every danger. Are you prepared to pay £10000 to fly to Spain on your jollies for instance? Or are you going to accept a higher, but still minute level of risk and board a sleazy jet? My guess is sleazy Jet every time. This principle of risk v cost is prevalent in all that we do. We all make these choices every day.

.. Look I accept the principle of risk management and your earlier post about Swiss cheese has validity, to a limited extent. Accidents are usually multi factorial, .. if would not have fallen except I was going that way and there was a banana skin and I was looking at the horizon. Of those three the fault was the location of the banana skin. It is the responsibility of the designer to anticipate .

It is rare for an incident to be unprecedented., Every lecture on safety at work starts with that statement. More usually the accident occurs a few times , but with minor damage. There are always precursors.

 

[Mal69]

Would you pay £10000 to fly to a European destination on an aircraft that was safer than one of the commercial operators flying there today?

No you wouldn't. You would accept the slightly enhanced risk based on cost saving. So there you have it.

You are making up figures now, can I have a go too.

Let's try an extra tenner instead, yes I would pay an extra ten quid for enhanced safety on an aircraft flying to Europe.

See how that works, bottom line is the Grenfell tower incident should never have happened, it could have been prevented and the cost would have been small, ask anyone in those towers if they would have accepted a tiny increase in rent to protect their lives and the answer would be yes.

Look up in the sky, a meteor is about to strike, wait, no, my mistake, it's Theresa May, the planes going down and she forgot her parachute, she apparently thought the plane was strong and stable but as usual she didn't do her homework, maybe Superman can save her, nope, even Supes isn't that fast.

Do your homework when building tower blocks, do your homework when making new fridges and washing machines, do not skimp on minimum safety standards and do not make excuses and do not penny pinch, as a person and a consumer I expect a minimum level of competence, these last few years have shown some companies and individuals are lacking basic competence and are putting profit ahead of safety, if laws need changed and clearly some do then do it, no dithering and waiting years, do it now.

 

[Danidl]

On this one I fully agree with Tillson. These claddings have been used safely all over the country over many years and they have passed their routine tests. Clearly there are different tests now being carried out to give different results, simply because all concerned are now trying to cover their backs against future events.

I've heard a lot of nonsense about residents warning about fire risks, but the truth is that none of them mentioned cladding in this connection because they had no idea it could be a problem. The issues they raised were completely different, so even if all their concerns had been addressed, Grenfell Tower would still have gone up in flames.

The fact is that anything can burn, iron filings even if enough oxygen is present, so absolute protection against risk is impossible. As Tillson posted, we have to compromise and through experience find the acceptable level of risk versus cost.

Until now the testing and risk level on tower block claddings has been satisfactory. Now as a result of a major fire we've found it's not, so we've already upped the testing standard which is naturally failing most existing installations. The eventual cost will be astronomic and deduct from our house building program which is already severely in deficit. So we'll end up with a relatively small number of people safer in theory but not in practice, and much larger numbers than now without homes. The latter might not think that a good outcome.
.

.. not everything can burn.. not everything can burn under normal or even extraordinary conditions. Glass fibre will not combust, it may melt together but support combustion no.

 

[Woosh]

Do your homework when building tower blocks, do your homework when making new fridges and washing machines, do not skimp on minimum safety standards and do not make excuses and do not penny pinch, as a person and a consumer I expect a minimum level of competence, these last few years have shown some companies and individuals are lacking basic competence and are putting profit ahead of safety, if laws need changed and clearly some do then do it.

the Grenfell tower was intrinsically safe when it was built.
Later, the addition of plastic double glazing windows, PIR insulation and pretty rain cladding that added an external chimney to it has made it unsafe.
It's strange that nobody mentions the professionals who supervised these improvement works.

 

[Mal69]

the grenfeel tower was intrinsically safe when it was built.
Later, the addition of plastic double glazing windows, PIR insulation and pretty rain cladding that added an external chimney to it has made it unsafe.

I know and apparently the additions were all legal, that's why we need a change of law, even if the odds are small of this happening again.