In no way does this exonerate knowingly selling Chocolate Fireguards, does it?
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Thank you for repeating my previous words!
let me put it simply
So signally crude an error is unforgiveable
And for your information when the company I worked for made the prototype Wall hung boiler, we pressure tested the combustion chamber to 1000 PSI to find out whether it would burst out of the metal outer casing and also simulated explosion situations too on all the boilers we put on the market, so I don't buy into this "They were innocent"
Hotpoint for instance were clearly culpable and selling an external casing panel of plastic on a device containing a highly combustilble isopropane coolant that they must have known had the possibility of a leak related fire to make it cheaper.
As for the people specifying and imposing the tests, were they by any chance employed by the Government following a cheapen it agenda?
Yes indeed flec, Fridge freezers have been a high fire risk for decades, so how could any engineer that values their reputation accept a VA call to fit an inflammable outer panel to one?
Inapropriate in this case as the error was so obvious.and cost cutting so much more important than safety.
If they knowingly sold chocolate fireguards, then they should not be exonerated. They should be punished. If they sold chocolate fireguards but, based on information available at the time of the decision, reasonably believed that they were sufficient and fit for purpose, then it would be unfair to punish them now that we have benefitted from hindsight. That would be crazy.
If a thing isn't safe it shouldn't be made and inflammable panels for both external cladding of buildings and the rear of Fridge freezers that for many years have been a known fire risk
tillson why would I be insecure? what on earth made you come out with that?
Then there is no possibleway that Hotpoint can wriggle out of liability is there? even a rudimentary test would have shown the risk of a plastic rear panel, so the choice becomes
- Did they not Bother to do any testing
- Did they ignore the result of any test
I bet a lot of other makers are urgently checking the rear of theirs. The fact is that vertical stack fridge freezers of all makes have been a high fire risk for many years, Hotpoint have been the unlucky one this time.
.
Very true, the use of isobutane to replace CFC's was always a high risk strategy
I was replying to Danidl OG, not you. Have a read of my original text and you will see.
You can always rely on the Sun to get it wrong look at this nonsense
David Davis has so far not put a foot wrong in Brexit negotiations
Not difficult if you cave in on everything!
And he will rapidly discover that window is armoured glass!
Interestingly the reader's comments are very mixed, not as you might expect toeing the Murdoch line.
For the Conservatives, the rot has truly started to set in
David Davis has so far not put a foot wrong in Brexit negotiations
Not difficult if you cave in on everything!
And he will rapidly discover that window is armoured glass!
Interestingly the reader's comments are very mixed, not as you might expect toeing the Murdoch line.
For the Conservatives, the rot has truly started to set in
I agree. If something can't be made safely, then it shouldn't go into production.
Just because the panels were known to be flammable from the rear side may not have been sufficient to stop them from being used. It may have been reasonably envisaged that the manner in which the panels were fitted and the way in which they would be used would reduce the risk of heat being applied to the rear face to an acceptably low level.
We put hundreds of tonnes of a dangerous and volatile liquid into an aircraft, we then sit on top of it, and hurtle along a strip of tarmac at 180 knots in the certain knowledge that if any one of a hundred moving parts fail, we are likely to meet with a fiery death.
We do similar with our cars. We put upwards of 50 litres of an even more volatile and dangerous liquid into them. Then we put those that we love and care about the most into a confined space just a few centimetres away from the petrol and propel them around at speeds that would prove fatal if something went wrong.
We do these things, which sound crazy and dangerous when described as above, because we perceive the risk to be acceptable. We think that the dangerous material (petrol and JET A1) has been managed and used in a safe way. It is only when freak incidents occur, the plane crashes or the car impacts and ruptures the petrol tank, that we see the danger and the flames. Exactly the same reasoning and principles apply with the tower cladding. It may have been known to be flammable (like the JET A1), but it was still used because it was thought to be safe under the circumstances in which it was put to use.
You have this habit of revisiting the incident and applying what you have learnt as a result of it to an earlier time. You then criticise with the benefit of hindsight.
I am not trying to defend anyone. All I am saying is that we should be fair to the designers, engineers and planners and judge them on what they knew at the time the decision to install the panels was taken.
But, tillson the cladding was actually classed as Illegal in America and Here too before it was installed according to this
"
It's ALREADY illegal: Hammond says public inquiry and criminal probe will answer why Grenfell had flammable cladding banned on tall buildings
- Attention has focused on the causes of the devastating blaze on Wednesday
- Cladding installed on the tower block was flammable and acted as a chimney
- The material is illegal in America and Germany but was installed on Grenfell
- Hammond today revealed he understood it was also illegal in Britain
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4615012/Chancellor-claims-Grenfell-cladding-illegal.html#ixzz4l7hf8oE1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
K?
Hammond was wrong and shown to be later. It was legal for use in Britain, as the contractor reported. There was no specific outlawing of its use, just some ambiguous recommendations.
That's why the regulations are to be revisited.
.
Which rather begs the question why it wasn't banned here too if it was in the USA and Germany, doesn't it?
Who is responsible for that being the case and why?
Especially considering this
"
The Reynobond cladding applied to the Grenfell tower last year as part of a £10m refurbishment is made from powder-coated aluminium panels that are usually filled with plastic insulation, which is flammable.
As detailed on the planning application, fire barriers were due to be inserted between the cladding on each floor to limit the spread to small melt out areas. But Dr Jim Glocking, technical director at the Fire Protection Association, said its own tests on external thermal insulation cladding systems showed that if these barriers are breached by a vent or a pipe, “a chimney effect may quickly develop that will cause the very rapid consumption of the insulation and expansion of the damage area”.
Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of Wilkinson Construction Consultants, said the hole could be relatively modest in size, adding: “Even a drill hole of four inches in diameter can be enough.”
During planning in 2012, the building service engineering company Max Fordham advised that one option in the refurbishment was to remove “fire stopping” systems temporarily in order to install new heating pipes. It is unclear if that approach was taken and Max Fordham did not return request for comment.
The cladding contractor, Harley, declined to comment on how the system was built out – citing the forthcoming investigation and public inquiry. But it is understood the design differed to that which was detailed in planning documents. Investigators are likely to want to quickly establish whether details such as cavity fire barriers, which appeared in planning drawings, were included.
Rydon, the main contractor, said in statement the project “met all required building regulations – as well as fire regulation and health and safety standards – and handover took place when the completion notice was issued by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea building control”.
Rydon chief executive Robert Bond said: “I will do all I can to assist in this investigation in order to establish what caused this tragedy. In light of the public inquiry, we cannot make any further comment at this time.”
Ipswich firm Celotex confirmed it provided insulation materials for the refurbishment. The material has the most stringent “class 0” fire rating in building standards regulations but independent tests on the material used to make it, polyisocyanurate, show that in intense fires it can release lethal hydrogen cyanide fumes and can be rapidly fatal.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
There's nothing unusual about this. Numerous standards in all sorts of areas vary very widely between different countries. Those in food and drugs for example, which are intimately involved in human health. We ban many things that the USA permits, GM food plants for example.
.
And now
"
Grenfell Tower: cladding material linked to fire pulled from sale worldwide
Arconic discontinues Reynobond PE, the material linked to the London blaze, for use in high-rise buildings
Was it because it is highly dangerous material? oh Dear me no!
"The manufacturer said in a statement: “Arconic is discontinuing global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise applications. We believe this is the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world and issues that have arisen in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy regarding code compliance of cladding systems in the context of buildings’ overall designs.
It's apparently nothing to do with them just our fault with having inconsistent building codes eh?
And there's this of course
"
The decision to stop selling it for use in skyscraper cladding comes after it emerged that the company knew that the less fire-resistant version, Reynobond PE, would be used on Grenfell Tower despite its own guidelines warning that it was unsuitable for buildings above 10m tall. Emails obtained by Reuters showed Arconic was involved in discussions about the use of cladding on the building during 2014.
One of its own brochures states that Reynobond PE should only be used in buildings up to 10m, with more fire-resistant products recommended above that height. Grenfell Tower is more than 60m tall.
Caveat Emptor
tillson previously noted
"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.
Those conditions are clearly met with the statements above, aren't they?
"
Grenfell Tower: cladding material linked to fire pulled from sale worldwide
Arconic discontinues Reynobond PE, the material linked to the London blaze, for use in high-rise buildings
Was it because it is highly dangerous material? oh Dear me no!
"The manufacturer said in a statement: “Arconic is discontinuing global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise applications. We believe this is the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world and issues that have arisen in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy regarding code compliance of cladding systems in the context of buildings’ overall designs.
It's apparently nothing to do with them just our fault with having inconsistent building codes eh?
And there's this of course
"
The decision to stop selling it for use in skyscraper cladding comes after it emerged that the company knew that the less fire-resistant version, Reynobond PE, would be used on Grenfell Tower despite its own guidelines warning that it was unsuitable for buildings above 10m tall. Emails obtained by Reuters showed Arconic was involved in discussions about the use of cladding on the building during 2014.
One of its own brochures states that Reynobond PE should only be used in buildings up to 10m, with more fire-resistant products recommended above that height. Grenfell Tower is more than 60m tall.
Caveat Emptor
tillson previously noted
"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.
Those conditions are clearly met with the statements above, aren't they?
Last edited: