the snap general election thread

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

From your link:

Another coroner ruled in 2013 that all high-rise buildings should be retro-fitted with sprinklers

Has a coroner got the authority to 'rule' that sprinklers should be fitted? I can understand a coroner recommending, but 'ruling'?

I think you are right. It is a recommendation not a ruling. Usually though, especially when health and safety is at stake it is regarded as a priority to be acted on.
https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/elections-and-council/lakanal-house-coroner-inquest
Here are the Coroners recommendations regarding the Lakanal House fire which took place exactly eight years ago and which John Humphreys referred to in his interview with Sajid Javid on radio 4 this morning.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

The thing here is though, fires are much more difficult to fight in tower blacks, so this is very much an argument confined to tower blocks, from a safety point of view they are not necessary in the average home. I certainly would not live in a tower block without sprinklers to the means of escape areas, would you? According to the link, it would have cost about £200k to install them in this particular tower black, isn't there 120 flats? If so, that is less than £1,700 per flat (I know that they aren't fitted in the flats, that's just the cost allocated per flat).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40293035

We can't really talk about this flat because we know it burnt down so even if the system cost £5 million it would have been worth it for this flat.

Its not just the cost its the cost versus how much the risk falls.
1 in 220,000 people die pee year in a fire.
If a sprinkler system lasts 30 years and say flats are twice as risky as a house and there are 2.4 persons per property then it means at a cost of £1,700 per property you would be spending £5.2 million of save 1 life.

We simply don't value life that highly. If we look at the NHS it values life at about £25k for a good quality year. Average age is about 40 and if people live another 40 years in decent quality that means the NHS values a 40 year olds life at about £1m. If drugs or treatment costs more than this £25k per quality year the NHS says no. So it doesn't make sense to spend 5 x as much on fire prevention. The same money would save at least 5x as many human life years on the nhs. Or the money could be spent even more wisely on things like anti smoking campaigns etc.


Also its not clear how many people would have died with a sprinkler system in the common areas of this building. Most fire deaths are actually from smoke not from burns. If the fire moved and spread outside the building and people were advised to stay in doors and the communal areas were full of thick smoke then perhaps a lot of people would have died even with a sprinkler system in the stair cases etc. It night be better to try and install a system in the kitchens as most fires start there. In this instance a sprinkler in the kitchen of the flat that started the fire might have put it out and avoided all the rest. It might not be too costly to install a sprinkler in a kitchen as it already has water pipes there. I am also going to guess one reason they are not widely used in housing blocks is that children mess around and I can see the system q being set off intentionally for 'fund' by kids and gangs. It sounds stupid but it would happen and how is the council going to deal with that?

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

I think you are right. It is a recommendation not a ruling. Usually though, especially when health and safety is at stake it is regarded as a priority to be acted on.

Yeah just bad reporting (and me being slightly pedantic).

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

Game, set and match. Well researched. They should be held to account.Their bonfire of 'red tape' and austerity agenda is costing lives.

Oh I hadn't realised this was a game. I thought we were talking about lots of people dying.

I think the rest of us would rather treat the situation with the respect it deserves. It's not a game.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

We can't really talk about this flat because we know it burnt down so even if the system cost £5 million it would have been worth it for this flat.

Its not just the cost its the cost versus how much the risk falls.
1 in 220,000 people die pee year in a fire.
If a sprinkler system lasts 30 years and say flats are twice as risky as a house and there are 2.4 persons per property then it means at a cost of £1,700 per property you would be spending £5.2 million of save 1 life.

We simply don't value life that highly. If we look at the NHS it values life at about £25k for a good quality year. Average age is about 40 and if people live another 40 years in decent quality that means the NHS values a 40 year olds life at about £1m. If drugs or treatment costs more than this £25k per quality year the NHS says no. So it doesn't make sense to spend 5 x as much on fire prevention. The same money would save at least 5x as many human life years on the nhs. Or the money could be spent even more wisely on things like anti smoking campaigns etc.


Also its not clear how many people would have died with a sprinkler system in the common areas of this building. Most fire deaths are actually from smoke not from burns. If the fire moved and spread outside the building and people were advised to stay in doors and the communal areas were full of thick smoke then perhaps a lot of people would have died even with a sprinkler system in the stair cases etc. It night be better to try and install a system in the kitchens as most fires start there. In this instance a sprinkler in the kitchen of the flat that started the fire might have put it out and avoided all the rest. It might not be too costly to install a sprinkler in a kitchen as it already has water pipes there. I am also going to guess one reason they are not widely used in housing blocks is that children mess around and I can see the system q being set off intentionally for 'fund' by kids and gangs. It sounds stupid but it would happen and how is the council going to deal with that?

I think a re-think is needed on values then, people need to feel and be safe.

I'm glad that I don't own any flats in high rise tower blocks, with only one stairwell:

- I can see some major works bills down the line for those that do.
- As well as falling values.

I do own 2 flats in a block with 5 storeys (ground floor/own entrance and first floor/communal entrance), but it is a much longer than tall block, and also has multiple entrances/stairwells. It is also brick clad,not insulated panels.

GreatApe

Its unlikely that the fire spread through the communal areas assuming they are concrete unless there was a lot of rubbish all over the communal areas. Some rubbish is possible but not likely to be rubbish everywhere in the communal areas. So it appears the fire spread from the outside perhaps via combustible panels.

If correct A sprinkler system in the stair cases and common areas would not have done much to stop the fire. It looks like what stopped people leaving via the stair cases etc was not heat(fire) but advise to stay put and possibly thick smoke in the communal areas.

Its difficult to know what to do. If it were me I would probably have stayed put believing the fire wouldn't have spread. If the flat I was in had itself caught on fire maybe I would have flooded the bathroom and tried to seal the bathroom door gaps with damp towels etc. It would probably have been too late by then the smoke alone would have killed even if the flames didn't make it in.

Moby

hallmark wrote: »

Oh I hadn't realised this was a game. I thought we were talking about lots of people dying.

I think the rest of us would rather treat the situation with the respect it deserves. It's not a game.

Apologies if I offended you. My 'game, set and match' comment was in relation to Joe Horner's link which I had missed.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

I think a re-think is needed on values then, people need to feel and be safe.

I'm glad that I don't own any flats in high rise tower blocks, with only one stairwell:

- I can see some major works bills down the line for those that do.
- As well as falling values.

I do own 2 flats in a block with 5 storeys (ground floor/own entrance and first floor/communal entrance), but it is a much longer than tall block, and also has multiple entrances/stairwells. It is also brick clad,not insulated panels.

You put a value on life and you then implement the safety measures that cost less than that and accept the risks that cost more than that. The only debate is really the value we put on life.

We could fit every building in the UK with sprinklers and it would save 250 lives a year. However the initial cost would probably be in excess of £60 billion and the ongoing cost of some £2 billion a year for upkeep. That simply isn't wise as those funds spent on other risks would save more people

For communal systems there is also the greater risk of vandalism and gangs setting them off on purpose for fun flooding properties needlessly in the process.

hallmark

GreatApe wrote: »

If correct A sprinkler system in the stair cases and common areas would not have done much to stop the fire. It looks like what stopped people leaving via the stair cases etc was not heat(fire) but advise to stay put and possibly thick smoke in the communal areas.

I must admit I'm amazed that the advice is to stay inside during a fire. Almost literally unbelievable. I've worked in many office buildings & the advice is always to exit immediately if there's any kind of fire.

I actually lived in a tower block in east london for years & years. I don't remember that being the advice at the time although I don't remember there being any advice at all back then. The main safety issue we were repeatedly reminded of was not to use gas (which was outlawed in our buiilding) because of Ronan Point.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

You put a value on life and you then implement the safety measures that cost less than that and accept the risks that cost more than that. The only debate is really the value we put on life.

We could fit every building in the UK with sprinklers and it would save 250 lives a year. However the initial cost would probably be in excess of £60 billion and the ongoing cost of some £2 billion a year for upkeep. That simply isn't wise as those funds spent on other risks would save more people

For communal systems there is also the greater risk of vandalism and gangs setting them off on purpose for fun flooding properties needlessly in the process.

It wouldn't be to every building, just residential tower blocks that:

1. Were built prior to 2007 and have not been through a major structural change (in which case they should already have sprinklers).

2. Some blocks like the one that I own 2 flats in would not require sprinklers, they are low rise, and have multiple entrances anyway.

I'm not necessarily saying do it, just investigate doing it, they might find that replacing insulated panels is what is needed.