Brexit, for once some facts.

[tillson]

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.

I'm not making up figures, but I think you know that. I agree to a large extent with the rest of what you say.

Yes, we would pay £10 to be a bit safer on an aircraft. How about £20 to be safer still? Or what about £30 for a bit more safety? The point I'm making is that there is a cut off point where risk v cost comes into play. That's the point I was making.

 

[flecc]

.. 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.

Actually it can if vapourised with sufficient heat. However I was supporting Tillson's principle of acceptable cost/risk balance.

It's so easy to be wise after the event, where was all this wisdom before Grenfell went up? It didn't exist and the evidence was that the cladding was safe so no-one was worrying about it.

I'm more concerned about vertically stacked fridge-freezers of any make which have been a known high fire risk for many decades, indeed ever since they first appeared. Knowing this I've never had one and have separate fridge and freezer since they so rarely suffer from fires it can be discounted.
.

 

[oldtom]

In case anyone has forgotten, this issue is bigger than simply the cladding flammability.

While I accept the point about there being a need to weigh cost against risk and make a decision with regard to that aspect of the Grenfell disaster, it does not address the other safety features absent from that block and others like it. Years before the work was commissioned on that estate, many business owners had paid for the installation of automatic sprinkler systems, hopefully to mitigate their loss in the event of fire. It also helped reduce fire insurance premiums.

To then not fit such systems in premises which were designed for human habitation appears almost criminal.

We have all seen American movies where almost a century ago, we saw skyscrapers with external fire escapes, we in the UK seemed to dismiss that idea. At Grenfell Tower, it may well be the case that such external fire escapes would have had a very limited effect on survival rates but they may just have helped save some.

Internally, how many avenues of escape were there? I raise these points because, in the absence of effective firefighting facilities within the building allied to limited exit channels, to then not select the best available fireproof materials with which to clad the building, does rather smack of negligence - did no-one at all have a duty of care?

With the benefit of hindsight, this was always an accident waiting to happen. Something like a fridge-freezer catching fire should be easily contained and I can imagine there being many other more likely causes of domestic fires so I'm amazed that such an incident has not occurred previously. That said, I thought lessons were supposed to have been learned from previous high-rise fires.

Tom

 

[tillson]

.. 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.

The two major factors in the accident which you describe are 1) negligence on part of the person who discarded the banana skin 2) negligence on part of the person who was looking at the horizon instead of where they were walking.

You could argue that the town planner could have provided more bins for people to put their banana skins in, more signage regarding littering. The town planner in this scenario would be the equivalent of the designer having "responsibility to anticipate" as you put it.

The Swiss cheese analogy has more than limited validity, it is the universally accepted model upon which accident investigation is based. It is entirely based upon the principle of accidents or disasters being multi factorial. Each hole in the cheese representing a single factor.

For example, let us block one hole at a time in the Swiss cheese concerning Grenfell Tower. IF the window frames had been constructed from steel, the disaster may not have happened. IF the fridge hadn't caught fire....... IF the evacuation procedure had been different...............

Hysterical flapping, blubbering and stirring up a class war isn't going to yield greater safety in the future.

 

[flecc]

Something like a fridge-freezer catching fire should be easily contained and I can imagine there being many other more likely causes of domestic fires so I'm amazed that such an incident has not occurred previously.

Since this was a hotter weather period, a factor at Grenfell could well have been an open kitchen window. If the fridge-freezer that caught fire was close to it, that would expedite the transfer of fire out to the underlayer of the cladding. With the cladding hiding the burn underneath, the firemen dealing with the fridge-freezer might well have not seen any evidence of it and thought all was well.

By far the worst of household appliances prone to fire are tumble dryers and vertical stack fridge-freezers in that order, most other appliances are very safe.

That said, I thought lessons were supposed to have been learned from previous high-rise fires.

I don't think theres been any real parallel with Grenfell, though as you say fire escape from high rise has been a very neglected area in this country.

I've always been aware of the risk, and when four floors up in an old house conversion years ago I had a one inch diameter rope with a loop on the end placed around a divan bed leg, the rope coiled under the bed. In the event of a fire I'd just have shoved the bed up to the window wall, thrown the rope out and shinned down it.
.

 

[tillson]

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.

Well if you worked in a design department, you will know that cost is one of, if not the most important, design consideration. If the product ends up too expensive, then no one will buy it and the design exercise becomes pointless because there is no market. Good design is concerned with producing the best product within a cost where it can be sold. If this balance can't be achieved, the idea is consigned to the bin.

There exists a threshold for safety based on standards. I could for instance inflict serious injury with my chainsaw. The risks could be reduced if the design department specified, extra guards, more protective clothing which had to be compulsory purchased with the saw, compulsory manufacturer based training before buying that particular brand etc. All of these factors make the saw safer than the competition, but increase the cost. So, you, wouldn't buy it. You'd buy a cheapo Chinese job and accept the greater risk.

You are obsessed with turning this into a Tory induced happening which is disgusting. You do not know that this disaster was caused by a purely a cost driven exercise with no regard for safety. I suspect that the most likely reason is that building engineers, architects and designers did not anticipated that a certain combination of circumstances could come together with such a devastating outcome. Whether it is reasonable to suggest that they should have anticipated what happened needs to be the subject of a formal investigation. The same goes for wilfully ignoring expert safety advice on the subject.

This is not a political football, it needs to be resolved properly, so cut it out. The same goes for John "Ronald" McDonald.

 

[tillson]

Since this was a hotter weather period, a factor at Grenfell could well have been an open kitchen window.

Another AND factor. Another hole in the cheese.

 

[tommie]

Meet the New U.K. Government!





Well done DUP!! A generous financial package for all,

Corbyn's path into Downing Street blocked by Arlene Foster. His IRA friends blew up her school bus & shot her father.

Justice!!.

 

[flecc]

Meet the New U.K. Government!

I think the view in England will be very different. If anything Theresa May has just managed to even further increase her growing unpopularity.
.

 

[Danidl]

Meet the New U.K. Government!


View attachment 19892


Well done DUP!! A generous financial package for all,

Corbyn's path into Downing Street blocked by Arlene Foster. His IRA friends blew up her school bus & shot her father.

Justice!!.

Tommie, Tommie, don't you read the newspapers, look up the proceedings of laganside court of last week where a uda operative or self styled commander was sentenced to multiple life sentences . Or remember your history where ex President McAleese , was burnt out of her home on the ardoyne as a child , but she had the strength of character to supercede this, and work for peace. Admit it your attitude and that of the UDA is fossilised thinking.

 

[Danidl]

Well if you worked in a design department, you will know that cost is one of, if not the most important, design consideration. If the product ends up too expensive, then no one will buy it and the design exercise becomes pointless because there is no market. Good design is concerned with producing the best product within a cost where it can be sold. If this balance can't be achieved, the idea is consigned to the bin.

There exists a threshold for safety based on standards. I could for instance inflict serious injury with my chainsaw. The risks could be reduced if the design department specified, extra guards, more protective clothing which had to be compulsory purchased with the saw, compulsory manufacturer based training before buying that particular brand etc. All of these factors make the saw safer than the competition, but increase the cost. So, you, wouldn't buy it. You'd buy a cheapo Chinese job and accept the greater risk.

You are obsessed with turning this into a Tory induced happening which is disgusting. You do not know that this disaster was caused by a purely a cost driven exercise with no regard for safety. I suspect that the most likely reason is that building engineers, architects and designers did not anticipated that a certain combination of circumstances could come together with such a devastating outcome. Whether it is reasonable to suggest that they should have anticipated what happened needs to be the subject of a formal investigation. The same goes for wilfully ignoring expert safety advice on the subject.

This is not a political football, it needs to be resolved properly, so cut it out. The same goes for John "Ronald" McDonald.

.. Cost is not the only criterion in an R&D department. , Otherwise we would all be flying in paper aeroplanes. Modern engineering practice has a multiple matrix of interlocking criteria, and good design is an acceptable mix of the criteria, bad design is where one of the criteria is ignored and excellent design is where the criteria are optimised. You must have only attended Design 101.

 

[Danidl]

Actually it can if vapourised with sufficient heat. However I was supporting Tillson's principle of acceptable cost/risk balance.

It's so easy to be wise after the event, where was all this wisdom before Grenfell went up? It didn't exist and the evidence was that the cladding was safe so no-one was worrying about it.

I'm more concerned about vertically stacked fridge-freezers of any make which have been a known high fire risk for many decades, indeed ever since they first appeared. Knowing this I've never had one and have separate fridge and freezer since they so rarely suffer from fires it can be discounted.
.

.. flecc for someone so knowledgeable, that's a rare lapse. Since the glass fibre is already oxidised silicon, where is the exothermic energy to come from. The vapourisaton phase will absorb energy.

 

[tillson]

.. Cost is not the only criterion in an R&D department. , Otherwise we would all be flying in paper aeroplanes.

This was my original sentence: "Well if you worked in a design department, you will know that cost is one of, if not the most important, design consideration."

Could you point out where I suggested that cost is THE ONLY criterion in an R&D department? I've looked but I can only find where I have said "one of" or "the most" important factor, never the only. Are you able to help?


Cost is exactly as I have stated. If the thing is going to cost too much, it doesn't get made.

As for the rest of your post, design being a consideration of a multitude of factors is what I have been saying repeatedly right from the outset.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with Design 101. Is that an attempt to insult me? Why would you want to do that? Are you insecure?

 

[tommie]

Tommie, Tommie, don't you read the newspapers, look up the proceedings of laganside court of last week where a uda operative or self styled commander was sentenced to multiple life sentences

Ermmm? your point here is???

You`re again starting to come across as rather bitter towards anything positive up North?!! This is a fantastic deal for ALL the citizens here.

But you`re over the border in the EU there so keep up those payments for your roads, toll booths at every corner, the Health service?? payments for doctor appointments, treatments, hospital stays, water charges etc, etc,

Yes a veritable paradise

 

[flecc]

where is the exothermic energy to come from.

Nuclear fission or fusion explosion.

Ok, not likely, but anything can be considered possible, especially in this period of hysteria following Grenfell.
.

 

[Kudoscycles]

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.

Surely the probability was that the fire source would come from the inside,the likelihood that a white goods would explode or some idiot heating up his drugs(as happened in one of my properties that burned the roof off,there was only one girl in the property at the time and thankfully she hadnt taken the battery out of the smpke alarm!!!!!!).
I did have one tenant who moved his bbq into the kitchen on a rainy day and set fire to the ceiling,thankfully easily extinguished.
You have no idea how stupid tenants can be at times.
KudosDave

 

[flecc]

You have no idea how stupid tenants can be at times.
KudosDave

Which is why fire safety in these blocks is based on containment, allowing the stupid to incinerate themselves safely.
.

 

[Kudoscycles]

You cannot rely on councils to approve or disapprove building regs. I once built a line of small industrial units which the architect and structural engineer both neglected to design steelwork to support the dividing walls. If one door was open and the next closed the vacuum created caused the walls to move like a wave.
We retrospectively supported the walls with external I beams,I paid for the work otherwise the tenants could not occupy the units.
The architect and engineer were both proven to be at fault but I also questioned why the council building control were not at fault....after all they were paid to check the drawings.
It transpired that the council had exclusion clauses which whatever the faults they could never be held liable....You will find in Grenfell and other blocks the council buiding control will hide behind their exclusion clauses,in law they can never be at fault.
KudosDave

 

[tillson]

Surely the probability was that the fire source would come from the inside,the likelihood that a white goods would explode or some idiot heating up his drugs(as happened in one of my properties that burned the roof off,there was only one girl in the property at the time and thankfully she hadnt taken the battery out of the smpke alarm!!!!!!).
I did have one tenant who moved his bbq into the kitchen on a rainy day and set fire to the ceiling,thankfully easily extinguished.
You have no idea how stupid tenants can be at times.
KudosDave

I guess that the likelihood of the reverse side of the cladding being subjected to heat will be the crux of the matter in determining if any bad practice has taken place. It seems that, until recently, all of the fire resistance testing has been conducted on the outer face, indicating that the possibility of fire from the reverse side has been disregarded. The question is, was it reasonable to discount this possibility.

 

[Danidl]

Ermmm? your point here is???

You`re again starting to come across as rather bitter towards anything positive up North?!! This is a fantastic deal for ALL the citizens here.

But you`re over the border in the EU there so keep up those payments for your roads, toll booths at every corner, the Health service?? payments for doctor appointments, treatments, hospital stays, water charges etc, etc,

Yes a veritable paradise

... I am not bitter about Northerners, my grandfather came from Ballycastle. I am bitter about the needless anguish that both the IRA, and it's fellow travellers, and the UDA and it's fellow travellers subjected the rest of the people in NI to for a generation. I am bitter that the intrangence expressed by you in each one of your postings is typical of a rump attitude still present. I am bitter that it lost for a generation in NI the prospects that membership of the EEC EU would offer, and that it generated a servile statelet where only the large injection of money from England kept it going.
I am also bitter that the republic had to bear the legacy of these troubles, educating a generation of gangsters, versed in murder and firearms. A problem you also have in the loyalist community.

So... I have not had time to see the details of the arrangement cooked up with Westminster, but t if it gives my fellow citizens of Ireland a better deal I am all for it.