This looks grim

[RayThom]

Guin, re. your ending quote. I see it's a trending retweet on the twitter. Wasn't this originally attributed to Obama?

[Bicycle Bill]

So, were sprinklers and alarms mandatory in a renovation? Only in new construction? Not at all?
Conflicting reports. Building conformed to "all required building regulations", what does that mean?
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

Just because something is built "to code" or "to specifications" or "to meet all required regulations" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be correct, proper, or safe.  As an example I give you the RMS 'Titanic'.  The number of lifeboats she carried (which in a best-case scenario still would have held barely half of all the souls on board) actually *EXCEEDED* the requirements of the British Board of Trade in effect at the time of her construction and launch.

-"BB"-

[rubato]

So they took a building which was already unsafe with no working alarms or sprinklers and then allowed them to wrap it in a coating which is known to ignite easily (a cigarette will do) spreads fire upwards rapidly and lacked windows which were an effective barrier to fire intrusion (which most of the gulf towers appear to have had). A 'worst of all worlds' situation.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Just because something is built "to code" or "to specifications" or "to meet all required regulations" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be correct, proper, or safe.

Agreed. Are they saying the code is not up to snuff? <--- no joke intended, my thesurus is not available.

I know there are different regulations for new construction vs remodel, but basic stuff like alarms I would think would be mandatory in any public type building regardless of being renovated or not. Sprinklers might want to be under a similar regulation (although not always feasable depending on the base construction).
And the material which seems to be the preliminary culprit should not be allowed based on the mid-east high rise problems referenced.

[rubato]

http://www.presstelegram.com/article/zz ... /712299957

Real estate lobbyists work hard to block laws requiring retrofitting. Some states have laws forbidding local jurisdictions from having local laws which are tougher than state laws:

States prohibiting statewide and new, local adoptions of fire sprinkler requirements: AK, AL, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI

Ca. has required sprinklers in all new residential construction incl single-family homes.

http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/ ... state.aspx


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Incorrect regarding Massachusetts. We do have sprinkler laws, they do apply to certain residential properties, and localities are charged with enforcing those laws (I'm involved in litigation on this very issue right now). We also have a Home Rule provision in our Constituion which lets cities and towns enact more stringent laws than state law. In some instances that is preempted, but that's a general doctrine of law that applies to every sovereign, including states and the federal government. It's not specially geared towards building or fire codes.

[rubato]

The site does not say Ma does not have sprinkler laws. It says that local jurisdictions cannot enact more stringent requirements than the state law, which you say is untrue. It also says that sprinklers are not required in one and two-family homes unless they are larger than 14,400 sq feet. Is that also untrue?


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Missing

[rubato]

They've started talking about the effect of the aluminum cladding. But they don't mention if there was flammable insulation underneath as there was in the gulf fires but it is hard to see what would have kept the fire going on the outside of the building if it was not there.:

2. Why did the fire spread so quickly?

Footage has shown the fire spreading up one side of the building externally, before engulfing the entire block.

Fire safety expert Elvin Edwards described it as a "chimney effect", adding that the wind would have fanned the flames.

Cladding can create cavities which in some cases can cause a chimney effect, drawing flames up the cavity if there are no fire barriers.

It is unclear whether Grenfell Tower was fitted with fire barriers.

The London Fire Brigade's aerial platform vehicles can reach heights of only about 32m (105ft) - limiting how high up the blaze can be fought.

Having to get 20 storeys up to rescue people in that situation "is just unbelievable", firefighter turned safety consultant Bob Parkin said.

After this kind of tragedy I always hope that we learn our lessons and don't make the same mistakes.

Maybe we should require landlords of unsprinklered buildings to notify all residents annually that their chance of dying in a fire is 5x greater.




yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

They are continuing to focus on the cladding which they now say was already illegal in the UK on tall buildings. But if that was the case why didn't the building inspectors flag it during the remodel? In the US, California at least, building inspections are required during all new construction and large scale remodels. On large projects like this there are often building inspectors on site nearly every day. The other question is why did they allow the building to be inhabited with no working alarms?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... legal.html

Sunday, Jun 18th 2017 11AM 95°F 2PM 103°F 5-Day Forecast
It's ALREADY illegal: Hammond says public inquiry and criminal probe will answer why Grenfell had flammable cladding banned on tall buildings

Attention has focused on the causes of the devastating blaze on Wednesday
Cladding installed on the tower block was flammable and acted as a chimney
The material is illegal in America and Germany but was installed on Grenfell
Hammond today revealed he understood it was also illegal in Britain

By Tim Sculthorpe, Deputy Political Editor For Mailonline

Published: 05:43 EDT, 18 June 2017 | Updated: 11:59 EDT, 18 June 2017

Flammable cladding that helped the inferno which destroyed the Grenfell tower is already illegal on tall buildings in Britain, Philip Hammond claimed today.

The Chancellor said criminal probes and a public inquiry into the disaster would answer why the controversial material was used.

It emerged today that the cladding installed on Grenfell was not designed for use on buildings taller than 10metres high - a fraction of the 67metre Grenfell block.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said cladding with a flammable core - like that used on Grenfell Tower - was banned on buildings over 18metres high.

A breach of building regulations is a criminal offence with unlimited fines.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4kNDQKHGq

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3804113/c ... ower-fire/

Was the cladding responsible for spreading the deadly Grenfell fire so quickly?

Experts said the composite foam sandwich panels helped spread the fire quickly from the lower floors all the way up the block.

And material used in the cladding on Grenfell was the cheaper, more flammable version of the two available options, an investigation of the supply chain by The Guardian has claimed.

Arnold Tarling, 55, of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection, said the foam “went up like matchsticks”.

And he said the waterproof zinc coating made it even harder for firefighters to douse the blaze.

He said: “They clad the concrete of this building with flammable insulation panels and rain screen cladding with a 30mm gap, which acted like a chimney.

“All the burning material falls down, starting more fires below, and the flames spread up and across searching for oxygen.

“Meanwhile, crews can’t tackle the fire effectively because their water just bounces off the rain covers.

“The cladding looks lovely, it’s cheap, complies with regulations and gives the building a high environmental rating. But it’s a silent killer.

“When this block was built, it complied with the old fire regulations. Had it been left alone it would never have burned like this.”

Witnesses to the blaze described how the material “went up like paper”.

The second article said it was zinc coated, not aluminum. Both of them will burn in air but I don't know the ignition temp for zinc. Zinc melts at a relatively low temperature.

yrs,
rubato

[RayThom]

They are continuing to focus on the cladding which they now say was already illegal in the UK on tall buildings. But if that was the case why didn't the building inspectors flag it during the remodel?
yrs,
rubato

POLITICS make strange, and sometimes lethal, bedfellows. I suspect some members in Parliament will eventually be dragged into this deadly quagmire.

[Scooter]

At least 30 dead.

Much is being made of the fact that the Queen and Prince William managed to go onsite and meet with residents, whereas Theresa May showed that she couldn't give a flying fuck by citing "security concerns" for not doing the same.

[Lord Jim]

the Queen and Prince William managed to go onsite and meet with residents, whereas Theresa May showed that she couldn't give a flying fuck by citing "security concerns" for not doing the same.

"It's safe enough for the Queen, but not safe enough or me"...brilliant PR message...

Geezus, what a political tin ear this woman has; no wonder she blew the election...

[rubato]

79 presumed dead.

Now it appears that this material was widely used on apartment towers. One thing is certain, the major failure was a failure of government. The PM 'refused to say' if the cladding was illegal throwing more doubt into the picture. But either the government failed to outlaw cladding which had caused many fires in the Gulf which were widely publicized or they failed to adequately enforce their own rules. The former appears to be more likely given the number of buildings it was used on; 600!

The material is outlawed in the US and Germany.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... er-charges

Speaking in the Commons on Thursday, the prime minister refused to say whether the cladding used in the tower was legal or not.

Thousands of tower block residents around the UK have been told that their homes are clad with the same flammable aluminium panels believed to have fuelled the blaze at Grenfell Tower.

About 600 high-rises across the UK have been clad, and some of these are likely to have flammable systems, the DCLG has estimated.

Councils have been asked to conduct safety checks, sending building materials to Whitehall to be tested.

May said the government would fund tests on up to 100 towers a day.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Further evidence points towards the kind of mindless deregulation the GOP is always promoting here:



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opin ... tower.html

The fire that destroyed a London apartment building, killing at least 79 people, provides a grim warning about the dangers of a regulatory approach President Trump has made official policy in Washington.

One of the safety failures under investigation in the fire is the lack of sprinklers in the 24-story Grenfell Tower. High-rises built in England since 2007 must have sprinklers, but older ones, like Grenfell Tower, built in 1974, do not have to be retrofitted with them.

Why not? Arbitrary deregulation, said Ronnie King, a former chief fire officer and honorary secretary of a parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue.

“It’s one of those that if you bring in a new regulation, you have got to give three up to get it,” Mr. King said in a BBC report, referring to a British law first passed in 2011 that requires the elimination of regulations as each new one is enacted. At first, one rule had to be ended for every new rule passed. That was later expanded to “one in, two out,” a standard President Trump put forth in an executive order he signed in January. In 2015, British law became “one in, three out.”

Such a pat formula could force officials to reject crucial new rules to avoid eliminating other important protections, or to eliminate such existing protections to make room for a new one.


“The government’s mania for deregulation means our current safety standards just aren’t good enough,” said Sam Webb, an architect and fire expert, in the BBC report.

Mr. Trump’s order is similarly likely to lead to dangerous elimination of safety rules, including those for food, drugs, water, air, autos and toys, partly because many obsolete or duplicative federal rules were already purged under the Obama era’s “look back” program to systematically revise, end and update existing rules.

And they have the kind of childish reliance on self-regulation that the GOP promotes as well.

Speaking in February 2014 during Fire Sprinkler Week, some of the members of the British House of Commons were all for sprinklers, but not for regulations to require them.

“We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation,” Brandon Lewis, who would later become housing minister for the Conservative government, said after praising the one-in, two-out formula then in use.

After the Grenfell Tower fire, the dangers of reflexive rejections of regulation, like Mr. Trump’s executive order, are clearer.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

On the plus side they will now have the political will to retrofit a lot of buildings which were tragedies waiting to happen.



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... 9N0OV?il=0

"...
World News | Sun Jul 2, 2017 | 11:27am EDT
Britain says 181 high-rise buildings have failed safety tests after London fire
The spire of the Notting Hill Methodist Church stands in front of Grenfell Tower, destroyed in a catastrophic fire, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in London, Britain July 2, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

Some 181 high-rise buildings have failed safety tests carried out after a fire that killed at least 80 people in London last month, the British government said on Sunday.

Officials are conducting tests on some 600 high-rise buildings across England after fire ravaged the Grenfell tower block in west London on June 14.

The Department for Communities said in a statement that the cladding from 181 high-rise buildings in 51 local authority areas had failed tests.

(Reporting by Paul Sandle; Editing by Kevin Liffey) ..."

A further impetus is the fact that all this publicity will be putting ideas in malefic minds re methods of mayhem.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Yet another example of the aluminum cladding = fire effect. This time in the unfortunately named "Torch Tower" which burned for the 2nd time.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/res ... d=49032925



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

This website covered that story, and I had to chuckle at the headline they used:

Eponymously named Torch Tower in Dubai catches fire again