Fire in England

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Greenpeace protests up there all the time, over everything.  Cutting down trees for fire-breaks is just one of the things they protested.  Not all their protests end up on the news - it's an every day occurance in the sands.

I just know  people who work for Syncrude chasing them off the sites.

I'm not sure what your ish is......you dont' believe Greenpeace protests up there?  You don't believe lack of fire-breaks was a factor?  You don't like people discussing possible factors in events?  I didn't mention nanothermite in my comment and you don't like that?  You're just being an arse?

The question is, what is your source for your, what is obviously hearsay, evident by the way you are scrambling - don't break a nail, and which you seemingly aren't honest enough to admit. 

[Goddess]

OK.  

Thank you. 

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

OK.  

Thank you. 

The question still stands, Goddess. Because you are university educated and you hold yourself to high standards.

[Goddess]

Here's the thing, Hot Enough - 

I don't really think you give a rat's patootie about anything Greenpeace protests in the oilsands.  I don't think you give a rat's patootie about the fire in Fort Mac.  I don't think you give a rat's patootie about the fire in England. I think you just enjoy fighting and I think it gives you some kind of "thrill" coming to an internet discussion forum and tossing insults about and being contentious. 

Good luck to you, I hope you find a purpose and some happiness in life.  Enjoy the rest of your day.  

Edited June 15, 2017 by Goddess

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Here's the thing, Hot Enough - 

I don't really think you give a rat's patootie about anything Greenpeace protests in the oilsands.

 

Of course I do. I also give more than a rat's patootie about people who make scurrilous comments without providing any proof. 

Why do you spend so much time talking about things other than your own hearsay? Do you consider that to be honest?

[overthere]

20 hours ago, Goddess said:

I stated these were conversations people in Fort Mac were having, talking about why the fire went so fast.

Do you have links for all of your verbal conversations and experiences?  You'll have to show me how to do that.  Must be some amazing technology.

I have also lived in FM, and have worked on major fires though not that one.  What caused the fire to be out of control so quickly was the weather and the wind.  You can bomb the area with retardant and water to your utmost ability and make pretty much no difference.  What was saved inside FM was due to intense work in small areas, and luck.   If the fire was established in some streets they did not attempt to do anythig but stop the spread.  Because that is all there is to do.  The main fire was not influenced by anything but wind changes and rain, which eventually slowed and stopped it.

 

In practical terms, it is pretty much impossible to construct firebreaks that would have stopped a fire of this magnitude.  The fire did not gain velocity by burning the town, it was full bore on trees long before it got there and was then creating its own weather.

 

What would help would be having a situation in towns that limits the fuel.  That means no trees, grass or shrubs anywhere near dwellings inside town .   That means metal roofs on all dwellings(which implies no buildings over 5 stories since high buildings have tar and gravel roofs or membranes).  No wood /vinyl at all on the exterior of buildings, and no wood or plastic fences.

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, overthere said:

I have also lived in FM, and have worked on major fires though not that one.  What caused the fire to be out of control so quickly was the weather and the wind.  You can bomb the area with retardant and water to your utmost ability and make pretty much no difference.  What was saved inside FM was due to intense work in small areas, and luck.   If the fire was established in some streets they did not attempt to do anythig but stop the spread.  Because that is all there is to do.  The main fire was not influenced by anything but wind changes and rain, which eventually slowed and stopped it.

 

In practical terms, it is pretty much impossible to construct firebreaks that would have stopped a fire of this magnitude.  The fire did not gain velocity by burning the town, it was full bore on trees long before it got there and was then creating its own weather.

 

What would help would be having a situation in towns that limits the fuel.  That means no trees, grass or shrubs anywhere near dwellings inside town .   That means metal roofs on all dwellings(which implies no buildings over 5 stories since high buildings have tar and gravel roofs or membranes).  No wood /vinyl at all on the exterior of buildings, and no wood or plastic fences.

Yes, those were all factors in Fort Mac, too.  Wind changed the course of the fire faster than crews could get a handle on things.  I dont' want to put blame on anybody, I just feel it was a series of events, most of which were uncontrollable and when decisions have to made that quickly, I can't imagine how hard that is.  I think Chief Darby did a fabulous job.  For myself, I wish the evacuations had happened sooner.  Our area went from voluntay to mandatory evacuation in about 10 mins.  It was not enough time for anyone to get home and retrieve belongings or pets.

Fire crews actually had to bring in dozers to mow down perfectly good houses to create fire-breaks as the fire was happening.  This was heartbreaking for the crews and Chief Darby who had to make that decision.  My ex texted me that day and told me about it....Later, I only saw that reported once in a news article. 

 

Edited to add:  To their credit, fire crews did their best to quickly retrieve pictures and anyting else they could from the houses they had to bulldoze.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Goddess

[SpankyMcFarland]

Residential tower blocks are a bad idea from many points of view. 

[betsy]

Green cladding, to save energy, may be the reason why the fire spread so quickly!

 

 

Quote

 

AN urgent review of tower block safety was launched yesterday after cladding on Grenfell Tower was blamed for spreading the inferno.

Panels designed to improve energy efficiency were fitted to the block in a £9million refurb completed in May last year.

But they were filled with foam insulation that “went up like matchsticks” in the blaze.

Yet use of the materials is entirely legal and complies with all current building regulations.

And experts say the cladding now covers thousands of homes and offices across Britain.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3800401/grenfell-tower-cladding-fires-world-high-rise/

 

Apparently, most if not all social housings in UK  are done that way - you know, to go green!  Those claddings are used around the world and are responsible for some fires.

 

 

Quote

 

The cladding installed on Grenfell Tower was also used on other buildings that have been hit by fires around the world, the BBC has learned.

The exterior cladding, added in 2015, had a polyethylene - or plastic - core instead of an even more fireproof alternative, BBC Newsnight understands.

High-rise buildings in France, the UAE and Australia that had similar cladding have all been hit by fires that spread.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40283980

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

So....they went for the cheaper kind.

 

Quote

 

Material used in the cladding that covered the Grenfell Tower was the cheaper, more flammable version of the two available options, an investigation of the supply chain has confirmed.

Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for “fire resistant” to the companies that worked on refurbishing Grenfell Tower.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

Edited June 16, 2017 by betsy

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Green cladding, to save energy, may be the reason why the fire spread so quickly.

 

 

According to a co-worker of mine from the area, the so-called green cladding was also about making the unsightly buildings poor people live in more attractive looking to rich people who live nearby.

[overthere]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

According to a co-worker of mine from the area, the so-called green cladding was also about making the unsightly buildings poor people live in more attractive looking to rich people who live nearby.

Wouldn't they also be more attractive to poor people who lived in the building?

 

The buildings had been recently upgraded, I wonder why life safety was not the first priority.  I know it often is here, having participated in several major highrise reno projects.  Upgrading fire alarms, fire suppression,mechanical  systems, elevator controls etc to current codes are all very costly and are nearly invisible.  But you simply cannot ignore those things to add some nice cladding.  

[DBlow]

On 6/15/2017 at 5:42 PM, DBlow said:

In the PR battle May has definitely hurt herself by reportedly visiting Grenfell without talking to any of the victims - a stark contrast to Corbyn's visit.

Labour are proposing requisition of nearby vacant properties (owned as holiday homes by the wealthy) for the victims. 

Which the public support:

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Theresa May is such a grotesquely bad politician with no ability to react to a crisis and face up to bad news. She needed to wade into the crowds and take some big risks, show whose side she was on. 

[betsy]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Theresa May is such a grotesquely bad politician with no ability to react to a crisis and face up to bad news. She needed to wade into the crowds and take some big risks, show whose side she was on. 

Wading into the crowds.......what good would that do? 

When a crowd is angry.....they'd lash at anyone.  Reason is gone.  Was it May who approved the use of those claddings?  Is she responsible for them?

More likely, she would've been the red flag to a snorting, mad bull.

Edited June 17, 2017 by betsy

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Wading into the crowds.......what good would that do? 

When a crowd is angry.....they'd lash at anyone.  Reason is gone.  Was it May who approved the use of those claddings?  Is she responsible for them?

More likely, she would've been the red flag to a snorting, mad bull.

It's not about legal liability. As PM she represents the state. Both Labour and Conservatives ignored reports on tower block fires and building deficiencies over the last ten years. I have no doubt that Cameron or Blair would have met families and taken public criticism already which would go some way to defuse the rage that is developing. She gives the impression she's hiding from the problem which is the worst thing to do. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

22 hours ago, overthere said:

Wouldn't they also be more attractive to poor people who lived in the building?

 

The buildings had been recently upgraded, I wonder why life safety was not the first priority.  I know it often is here, having participated in several major highrise reno projects.  Upgrading fire alarms, fire suppression,mechanical  systems, elevator controls etc to current codes are all very costly and are nearly invisible.  But you simply cannot ignore those things to add some nice cladding.  

If you've participated in highrise reno projects answer a question, would you? I understand these types of 'cladding' are against code in the US. Are they illegal here?

[Argus]

16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Theresa May is such a grotesquely bad politician with no ability to react to a crisis and face up to bad news. She needed to wade into the crowds and take some big risks, show whose side she was on. 

Well, realistically, she's not on theirs...

These are lower class public housing project residents. They vote Labour.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, DBlow said:

Which the public support

Yes, the unwashed whose very lives are dependent on the taxes of higher income earners have no problem stealing their property. Why would they?

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Well, realistically, she's not on theirs...

These are lower class public housing project residents. They vote Labour.

She promised to be a 'one nation' Tory:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36788782

 

But you've got to be nimble in this line of work:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/17/europe/grenfell-tower-fire/index.html

 

 

[kactus]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It's not about legal liability. As PM she represents the state. Both Labour and Conservatives ignored reports on tower block fires and building deficiencies over the last ten years. I have no doubt that Cameron or Blair would have met families and taken public criticism already which would go some way to defuse the rage that is developing. She gives the impression she's hiding from the problem which is the worst thing to do. 

Exactly so! Even the Queen made the effort and visited those people, the opposition party leader did but no sense of dignity and compassion from May.

[kactus]

This tragic event is a commercial manslaughter and the ones responsible for providing cheap materials are fully responsible for this...

The building was renovated last year and still absence if safety measures were apparent. No sprinklers.

[capricorn]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If you've participated in highrise reno projects answer a question, would you? I understand these types of 'cladding' are against code in the US.

Quote

Companies do what they do best. Cover their asses.

Quote

Reynobond, the U.S. company that supplied materials for the Grenfell Tower renovations, also sells products in North America. However, it warns on its website that use of Reynobond PE is discouraged by the International Building Code, and in several countries, for taller structures.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3534486/london-fire-grenfell-tower-cladding-canada/

Are they illegal here?

From the same link.

Quote

Canadian regulations clearly spell out rules for cladding that can be used on buildings four storeys or higher in height. They state that the material needs a fire rating of at least one to two hours — a window that would theoretically allow most people ample time to escape a blaze.

All exterior cladding materials for buildings higher than four storeys must be tested for fire resistance and comply with strict standards. The Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, part of the National Research Council, updated its regulations as recently as 2015.

Provinces often have their own set of regulations.

The Ontario Building Code, for example, prohibits the use of “combustible cladding” on buildings higher than six storeys.

In any case, the company that supplied the cladding for the Grenfell tower renos will soon be out of business.

[kactus]

12 hours ago, capricorn said:

From the same link.

In any case, the company that supplied the cladding for the Grenfell tower renos will soon be out of business.

Damn right they will be out of business. As already stated this is commercial manslaughter and they will be prosecuted. It is also wirth noting this particular building has had a series of safety issues in the past. It was renovated last year and they still didn't manage to address thise concerns fully by the council...

 

[kactus]

Right now Theresa May is a lame duck. With the coalition of chaos with DUP in the horizon the situation for Tories has gone from bad to worse. JP Morgan has already offshored 30% of their business and other businesses are following suit post Brexit...

Unfortunately, Corbyn's anti enterprise policies doesn't put him in a better light amongst businesses and would only facilitate the move of big companies out of UK if he became prime minister.