Grenfell Tower - Celotex

I think the problem here is that when it is in forced ventilation and exposed to a massive radiant energy as it was on the side of the building all bets are off. It did survive remarkably well considering but it almost certainly added to the fuel load since in extremis it will burn/char (but plenty of charred bits remained on the building and had fallen to the ground where they went out).

Actually the heavy Victorian beams don't go up all that easily. It takes a lot of heat and time to get a 12x4 joist to catch light. It burns the corners off first and if the heat source is removed goes out again.

One reason for having some rodent control in lofts is they like to nibble the insulation off mains cables.

I covered mine (80%) in plasterboard. Got electrical apparatus (SELV PSUs and Zwave dimmer modules) mounted on double plasterboard.

But *only* in the UK where apparently different laws of physics and chemistry apply to in the rest of the world if the makers datasheet is to be believed. What this shows is that our fire testing standards are woefully inadequate (and seriously out of date). Also that architects here seem remarkably unaware of major high rise fire incidents overseas.

British Standard "Class 0" in this instance the BS stand for BullShit. I don't believe that they can have ever tested the PE variant or if they did then there is something fundamentally wrong with their methodology. Probably tested against a thick inert concrete wall...

There is another nasty in that with this Reynobond PE crap rated as UK Class 0 it can be used anywhere inside a building not just as cladding. In some locations that can compromise fire evacuation routes.

Even applying truly Class 0 rated material over walls covered in many old coats of paint can seriously compromise the fire rating (which is based on it being on a clean inert wall of plaster or concrete). See

Hammond was on yesterday claiming that "his understanding" was that the PE variant was banned on tall buildings in the UK too but that remains to be seen. If it was UK Class 0 just like the FR then I don't see how anyone can be prosecuted for taking that specification at face value.

(Even though good engineers ought to know that the stuff was flammable)

Fires can potentially start in the loft if a critter nibbles a mains cable and becomes a charred heating element as a result. ELCB usually kicks in at that point. Squirrels and rats are the worst for this.

This really is the point. I read on social media the next day the actual spec of this stuff and that it was banned for this use in other countries. So hardly a secret.

I must be alone in not understanding how anyone could be in the position of specifying such a material on a multi-million pound project and so out of touch. Sadly, the alternatives don't bear thinking about.

External stairwells, which some tower blocks have, only need to be made of fire-resistant material like reinforced concrete. If the main fire is in the building then the external stairwell is unaffected.

But this is social housing, where people think nothing of dumping old mattresses and other junk at the bottom. Plus the problem with vandals, druggies leaving needles etc etc.

Lots of space round the building, so build another tower block about 20 feet away and join them every 5 floors with fire-resistant walkways, losing one flat in every 5 floors from the original.

That way any front door security system will keep out the unwanted.

Sadly it would seem Class O really means bugger all.

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it - there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice accommodation.

Quite a few tower blocks where the stairs are more like a separate building. Access to that need be no more wasteful of space than to an internal one.

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation in question[1].

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be under-funded.

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do they?

In message , at 11:35:02 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care, either).

ITYM 'debenture'

Shirley?

And there was me thinking you axshlly had had a university eddykayshun

Celotex do not supply cladding, nor manufacture it, nor supply materials that could be used in its manufacture, but other than that your source was entirely accurate.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and construction?

Finding out whether applicants were able to spell the word "dementia" might be a good place to start, however.

michael adams

...