the snap general election thread

ukcarper

LHW99 wrote: »

An issue with any sprinkler system is that actually most deaths are as a result of smoke inhalation.
Sprinklers, as with fire extinguishers, are only useful if they can actually put a fire out.
It appears that a major issue was that there was only one escape stair, and that was filled with smoke, hence reports of people collapse and worse on the stairway out.
Sprinklers would not have solve that issue.
Adding an external stirway might, but it would need to have been secure, and useable by very small children, the elderly and people carrying babies - so not fixed ladders.

A question that the enquiry needs to answer is, if flats are supposed to have 1 hour fire resistance, how did flames reach the external cladding for it to catch in the first place, since we hear (but don't actually know for sure) it began with a fridge inside a flat.

To now what cause the fire to spread so quickly we will have to wait until ther results of enquiry.

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

An issue with any sprinkler system is that actually most deaths are as a result of smoke inhalation.
Sprinklers, as with fire extinguishers, are only useful if they can actually put a fire out.

Sprinklers also tend to reduce dust etc because it'll stay on the ground when damp, and should stop the heat spreading as much.

A question that the enquiry needs to answer is, if flats are supposed to have 1 hour fire resistance, how did flames reach the external cladding for it to catch in the first place, since we hear (but don't actually know for sure) it began with a fridge inside a flat.

That definitely needs to be answered; a fire in a fridge in 1 flat shouldn't have spread to other flats on that floor, let alone destroy the building. There are a lot of failings in this, and none of them are the residents fault.

I really feel for the fridge owner, he's going to be demonized something rotten by the press (it's already started, I believe) despite the fact that none of the further damage is in any way his fault. He didn't postpone the review, ignore the faulty alarms, or cheap out on the cladding. Nor is he responsible for the reduced fire service support which resulted in those guys having to do such long shifts without cover.

Herzlos

You also can't try and claim it's acceptable for people to live in unsafe housing, because some money may be better spent in the bigger picture. Individual people matter, too.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Herzlos wrote: »

You also can't try and claim it's acceptable for people to live in unsafe housing, because some money may be better spent in the bigger picture. Individual people matter, too.

I think you are twisting what is being said somewhat.

Not don't make it safer if you proportionately can - but spend money to reduce risk to life for everyone everywhere not just for the few. And likewise do not exclude the few, of course.

Herzlos

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

I think you are twisting what is being said somewhat.

Not don't make it safer if you proportionately can - but spend money to reduce risk to life for everyone everywhere not just for the few. And likewise do not exclude the few, of course.

Why not do both? The cost of fitting sprinklers where actually needed isn't that high and could potentially save a lot of life and property.

We're not talking about fitting personal escape pods for each apartment, which would be disproportionate, but spending what, £1.5k per flat on sprinklers?

Would we need a sprinkler system if the passive systems weren't bypassed in order to save money?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Herzlos wrote: »

Why not do both? The cost of fitting sprinklers where actually needed isn't that high and could potentially save a lot of life and property.

We're not talking about fitting personal escape pods for each apartment, which would be disproportionate, but spending what, £1.5k per flat on sprinklers?

Would we need a sprinkler system if the passive systems weren't bypassed in order to save money?

That is a better way to start thinking - but again you need the experts to tell you that is the best way to spend money - e.g. those without smoke detection or hardened exits should get those first surely - a fire that a sprinkler system cannot stop and no way out ...

Then you also need to do the numbers as GreatApe has been trying to (but criticised for) because like you he simply calculated what if we do them all! Then you need that money.

If we stick to just flats - I have seen so many numbers but going with 4,000 tower blocks as cost of £200k to fit sprinklers (ignoring ongoing maintenance and the kids setting them off for fun as happens) = £8Bn right?

That 8Bn has not been costed by labour or anyone but would need a new source of money or for other money to be diverted. And then we still have cladding to take off and replace and everything else that is neglected like stairwells and so on....

No small answers here...

kabayiri

We don't have enough info to go on at the moment.

Why don't they do a site review of an equivalent building? One with similar construction and cladding. I should imagine one exist.

I have heard an argument about the presence of asbestos making refits more difficult. This is just speculation at the mo. We need hard evidence as to what is practical with these buildings.

LHW99

We don't have enough info to go on at the moment.

No but the BBC thinks it does, Panorama prograame on BBC 1 tonight titled "London Tower Fire: How did it happen"

Bandwagons and jumping come to mind

westernpromise

kabayiri wrote: »

It's not the price so much.

It's the complete process in which a cheaper material is selected, all the way through to sign off from the fire department.

There could be multiple issues here, ranging from negligence and ignorance, through to greed and skimming off the top of contracts.

The headline figure of £2.6m for the external refit should have been enough for a proper and safe job IMO.

I'd really hope they publish all the specifications and project decisions relating to this work, in time.

If the alternative material was only £6k more then it seems very unlikely to me that cost cutting was the basis for not choosing it. The idea that a saving of 0.06% on a £10 million refurbishment was thought worthwhile is nonsense. I've priced up EPC projects and anything less than about 5% would be considered invisible.

It is much likelier that the supposedly slightly more expensive material was either unavailable or uncommon or better for greenhouse targets.

Herzlos

Depends on how much pressure you're under to keep the costs down. Every penny helps and all that.

Builders charging for expensive material and swapping in cheaper stuff isn't a thing anymore, right?