600

statement withdrawn 15 minutes ago....what a fiasco ....

"Similar to" is in the eye of the beholder.

Looks like so far 3 have tested as a non-trivial flammable risk.

I'd be inclined to alter the evacuation SOP for any potentially affected blocks and get engineers to assess the risks. Finding all occurrences of Raynobond PE (and similar PE composites) in safety critical locations makes good sense but no point panicking about the FR (fire resistant) or even better A2 grades which look the same but with a different core.

I've not been following the threads here on the Grenfell tower, but media reports recently are talking about cyanide in the fumes from the burning cladding, and that a couple of the survivors who were rescued are being treated in hospital for cyanide inhalation.

Would Reynobond PE give off cyanide as it burnt? If PE stands for polyethylene, as seems to be the case, where does the cyanide come from? Doesn't the emission of cyanide imply a urea-formaldehyde or isocyanurate insulation, else where does the nitrogen come from?

The cladding has several layers, the one in contact with the building is Kingspan/Cellotex rigid polyisocyanurate. While this foam does not support combustion it will burn, giving off Hydrogen Cyanide amongst other gasses, if put in a strong enough flame. The outer layer seems to be polyethylene sandwiched between two aluminium sheets and with an air gap between the outer sandwich and the inner polyisocyanurate foam. This gap seems to be the conduit by which hot gas traveled upwards at a high enough temperature to cause the polyisocyanurate to decompose and the polyethylene liner to burn. There should be a fire break at each floor level to stop such flame propagation.

No wonder TM hasn't done anything constructive in the last 5 years - she has been busy going back and forth to B&Q buying and installing all these illegal cladding... (according to the mob anyway).

No, but the celotex underneath the reynobond is likely to.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks.

What they don't say, at least not yet is how many commercial buildings have it. I was listening to a dab channel this morning very early. Sounded American and it was stated something about insurance companies reviewing exposure to issues following the fire and the number of commercial properties world wide which might also be affected.

Brian

I smell a rat here. However I cannot help but wonder if the real problem is inappropriate use or incorrect fitting. Many years ago as i recall we had some info about buildings cladding that was supposed to simply melt and peel off if fire broke out. it could well be that it is the same material either fitted wrongly or used in the wrong way. This sort of problem often happens when multiple contractors are hired to different parts of a job. There is no check done to see if the methods used in each stage in a project is compatible with another part. Saving money by going for the cheapest quote and having no really quality oversight of the whole is to blame. Brian

our local council had to decant because of a building refurbishment and their building control section was asked if they could use a disused high flat.....we checked and as it had only one stair we said no as over four storeys two exits are required in an office building.....councils will try any thing to save money .......

The cyanide is coming from the burning insulation foams - Celotex is a cyanurate and furniture foam usually polyurethane. Both have thermal decomposition products that include traces of hydrogen cyanide.

Cyanide is roughly an order of magnitude more toxic than carbon monoxide and both are likely to be present in the horrid sooty black smoke.

I think they were treated with cyanide antidote as a precaution. My recollection from electroplating days was that if you have smelt hydrogen cyanide and are still alive 15 minutes later you are OK. (this would not go down well with modern elfin safety culture)

Worst polyethylene can manage is carbon monoxide and hot black soot.

Furniture foam when it finally does burn has the most lethal smoke.

Thanks. Yes, I rather assumed it was precautionary, or at least not that serious. As you say, they were still alive.

I imagine a lot of people in the electroplating industry have smelt cyanide with no ill effects. I have smelt it very many years ago in a university chem lab where someone was doing a prep that gave off traces of the stuff, and I'm still here.

I'd guess almost everyone doing industrial plating in the good old days. The opo's used to have a casual disregard for handling cyanide eggs from

This was done as a show of bravado sometimes to impress visiting VIPs. That was until one dropped dead of shock (heart attack) on seeing a man plunge his hands into the deadly cyanide. A full cyanide death enquiry ensued and the firm censured for dodgy H&S procedures but the death was of natural causes due mainly to the fearsome reputation of cyanide.

Depends whether you are one of the population who can smell cyanide, of course. IME the people who were most nervous handling it were those who couldn't smell it. Unlike hydrogen sulphide, which is similarly toxic, but everyone recognises the smell (unless it's present in dangerously high concentration...).

In message , at 09:25:52 on Fri, 23 Jun

As not-for-profit organisations spending public money, wouldn't they be criticised if they did anything else?

Maybe but moving a problem so somebody else has to pay for it is hardly fair. Brian

In message , at 17:32:12 on Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Brian-Gaff remarked:

But it (if indeed the case) is what the law decrees. Councils can't ramp up their tax in the face of legally imposed caps.