Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Antman]

Its a very small chance of a catastrophic fire - versus the far more likely health problems to be caused by the stress and fear associated with putting people in temporary accomodation, possibly with repeated moves, that is unlikely to be particularily comfortable.

Its a similar situation to the FUkushima evacuation - where it now appears the populace suffered more health problems from the stress of the evacuation than would have been suffered from radiation had they simply remained in place.

EDIT:


A fire on the top floor is not that bad in terms of safety of life.... after all it would not trap anyone and fires advance downwards considerably more slowly than they advance upwards.

THe worst case is a fire on a floor just out of reach of the fire brigade's primary hoses.

There may only be a very small chance of a catastrophic fire but it's a chance that is just not worth taking.

If there were a fire on the top floor the melting cladding would ignite the panels below.

 

[HSTEd]

There may only be a very small chance of a catastrophic fire but it's a chance that is just not worth taking.

A tiny chance of lots of fatalities versus a huge chance of some fatalities [elderly and such people].

 

[takno]

Normally, yes. However if you look at the photos of the fire at Grenfell Tower it is clear that the fire went up one side of the building and then back down the other *very* quickly.

I'm no expert on fires, and if you are I bow absolutely to your greater knowledge, but this is the way things looked to me from the photos you posted: As the fire progressed rapidly upwards it was moving somewhat to the right, presumably in line with the prevailing wind. This created a diagonal shaped fire. This diagonal spread much more slowly laterally to the right, again because of the prevailing wind. That meant that when it made it round the corner the higher floors were alight first, followed some time later by the lower floors. That made it look like the fire moved downwards, when in fact the movement was entirely lateral.

 

[Antman]

A tiny chance of lots of fatalities versus a huge chance of some fatalities [elderly and such people].

Well people can stay put if they really want to, at their own risk.

If an elderly relative of mine lived there I'd rather they were out.

 

[najaB]

I'm no expert on fires, and if you are I bow absolutely to your greater knowledge, but this is the way things looked to me....

No greater knowledge at all, and your interpretation is consistent with the available information. We'd need video rather than a sequence of stills to know for sure.

 

[bramling]

Its a very small chance of a catastrophic fire - versus the far more likely health problems to be caused by the stress and fear associated with putting people in temporary accomodation, possibly with repeated moves, that is unlikely to be particularily comfortable.

Its a similar situation to the FUkushima evacuation - where it now appears the populace suffered more health problems from the stress of the evacuation than would have been suffered from radiation had they simply remained in place.

To the people moaning - welcome to the real world.

I recently had my house rewired. Guess what - it was stressful! No council to support me, no temporary accommodation, and meanwhile had to manage the work myself and needless to say pick up the bill too.

I find it astounding that folk are prepared to play Russian roulette with lives. If the fire brigade have declared the buildings unsafe, that should be the end of the matter. At least the people affected will have their home and possessions to return to at the end of it all.

I know I'd be out - especially having seen the graphical images and heard the accounts of what happened last week at Grenfell.

 

[bramling]

A tiny chance of lots of fatalities versus a huge chance of some fatalities [elderly and such people].

Evidence to support this?

A fire could occur any time, so the "tiny chance" relies basically on luck.

 

[bramling]

Now I agree, blaming residents is absurd and helps no one.

No one has blamed the residents for the situation. However things are where they are, and a more mature attitude from some residents wouldn't go amiss. Bad things sometimes happen in life, having to move out of one's home for a short period isn't so bad in my book. It's not like they have to worry about the management of the works nor the cost.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The chances of a major fire in one of these affected blocks in the time before the cladding is removed is tiny.

I can fully understand residents who choose to stay put.

You could have said that about the chances of a fridge freezer with no previously reported problems exploding, setting fire to 23 levels and killing almost 80 people.

 

[najaB]

You could have said that about the chances of a fridge freezer with no previously reported problems exploding, setting fire to 23 levels and killing almost 80 people.

The key difference being a very tight time bound in one case and no time bound on the other. The odds of a fire occurring in the next week is very low. Not that I'm saying the residents should stay, but I can understand why there are some who are reluctant to evacuate.

 

[bramling]

You could have said that about the chances of a fridge freezer with no previously reported problems exploding, setting fire to 23 levels and killing almost 80 people.

Exactly.

Furthermore, I may deem such a risk acceptable in my own home, where I know that I have taken what I regard as an acceptable level of precaution to prevent and mitigate against fire. No way would I take the same view in a block where one is very much reliant on what steps others have - or haven't - taken, especially where the fundamental fire mitigation strategy of containment is potentially completely compromised. If I were responsible for the safety of residents, no way would I be taking the gamble, especially if I'd received advice from the fire brigade.

The council should of course do what they reasonably can to make the situation as bearable as possible for the people affected. They're providing alternative accommodation, and are reportedly assisting residents back into the blocks under controlled conditions to give them the chance to collect belongings. All seems very reasonable to me.

 

[HSTEd]

Evidence to support this?

A fire could occur any time, so the "tiny chance" relies basically on luck.

It is a well known effect that forced relocations of people for "safety reasons" tend to result in major anxiety and stresses. And that such anxieties and stress can result in premature death.

You are effectively demanding that they be turfed out and sent to temporary accomodations, which based on the experience of the Grenville tower survivors, could result in several more forced moves.

And Camden have provided no real estimates of when the works will be completed, once everyone is out of the building it is likely the residents think all urgency will dissapear and it could be months before they can get back in.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The key difference being a very tight time bound in one case and no time bound on the other. The odds of a fire occurring in the next week is very low. Not that I'm saying the residents should stay, but I can understand why there are some who are reluctant to evacuate.

The chances of the Grenfell Tower catching fire were very low.

Camden Borough Council would have been in an awful situation if one of their towers had gone up in flames on Friday night and they'd not told residents to leave even though they knew the tower block was dangerous.

 

[najaB]

The chances of the Grenfell Tower catching fire were very low.

Given that there was no time bound, the probability that it would catch fire was very close to 100% (given infinite time, everything has a probability approaching 100%).

The probability that a fire would occur on any given day (or short time span) was very low.

 

[bramling]

Given that there was no time bound, the probability that it would catch fire was very close to 100% (given infinite time, everything has a probability approaching 100%).

The probability that a fire would occur on any given day (or short time span) was very low.

I don't see the probability of a fire occurring as being the main issue. The difficulty is that *if* a fire occurs, there appears to be a high likelihood that the building's fire mitigation strategy will prove completely ineffective, as it did at Grenfell with a spectacularly tragic outcome. For me it then becomes a simple question of "is the risk of a fire occurring non-zero?". If so, then evacuation is the only reasonable option.

If the worst did happen and those accountable for making the decision were to end up in a court of law, do we think it would wash that they gambled that the risk of fire was minimal? How about if firefighters were killed as a result of entering the compromised building to rescue tenants who refused to decant?

The situation is simply one of those unfortunate facts of life. No one wants it, but sometimes we have to put up with inconvenience. I can't help adding that the tenants put various responsibilities onto the council that those owning their own properties have to do themselves, for example maintenance and upkeep. Part of the trade-off of this is that they are also shifting safety responsibility away, so there really is little scope to moan when someone else makes a safety judgement based on advice from the fire brigade which appears to be what has happened.

I just can't see the situation lasting, it's surely in the council's interest to get the work done as quickly as possible. For a start their assets are still a fire liability even if people aren't living in the block, and secondly the situation will be costing both resources and money the longer it goes on. I can't see if benefits anyone to keep the blocks empty for any longer than is necessary, and presumably the blocks being empty may well mean the remedial work can be expedited.

 

[najaB]

The difficulty is that *if* a fire occurs, there appears to be a high likelihood that the building's fire mitigation strategy will prove completely ineffective, as it did at Grenfell with a spectacularly tragic outcome. For me it then becomes a simple question of "is the risk of a fire occurring non-zero?". If so, then evacuation is the only reasonable option.

I don't disagree with your point. I'm just saying that I can empathise with the residents who are reluctant to leave.

 

[Dai Corner]

The latest information is that the cladding from sixty buildings has now been tested and every single one failed.

One wonders whether there is something different about the Camden blocks, Camden Council are being unduly cautious or the other Councils too complacent.

 

[bramling]

I don't disagree with your point. I'm just saying that I can empathise with the residents who are reluctant to leave.

I can empathise with them - it's a horrible situation. But as I say, it's a fact of life that sometimes bad things happen, and sometimes we have to put chin up and deal with it. In my view those refusing to move are displaying highly selfish and ignorant behaviours.

 

[najaB]

The latest information is that the cladding from sixty buildings has now been tested and every single one failed.

That should, hopefully, put to bed all the accusations of cost-cutting, corruption and cowboy builders that were being thrown around last week. It seems that there was a systemic failure rather than something specific to one block of flats.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That should, hopefully, put to bed all the accusations of cost-cutting, corruption and cowboy builders that were being thrown around last week. It seems that there was a systemic failure rather than something specific to one block of flats.

Unless all those tower blocks are victims of cost cutting, corruption and cowboy builders.

 

[najaB]

Unless all those tower blocks are victims of cost cutting, corruption and cowboy builders.

Sixty out of sixty? There must be a lot of it going around.

 

[Busaholic]

How many pumps was the 1980 Alexandra Palace fire?

I don't know the answer to that, but the risk to life was probably similar to the Crystal Palace fire of the 1930s, which my father saw from Bromley, in that it was spectacular and could be viewed from a fair distance, but probably posed little threat to life given that the respective buildings were splendid in their isolation and nobody lived there.
The other 40-pump fire of recent years received little publicity outside the immediate area and occurred in 2012, on the Last Night of the London Olympics, and not too far from Stratford. It was on a landfill site and, apparently, if not quickly brought under control could have led to the cancellation of the Closing Ceremony. There was therefore, shall we say, slightly more pressure than normal to bring it under control, and perhaps even more pressure to ensure news of it did not spread.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Sixty out of sixty? There must be a lot of it going around.

Well if Kensington Borough council with its huge cash reserves chose to go down the route of cost cutting / taking risks with peoples lives who's to say that cash strapped borough councils haven't gone down the same route?

 

[Antman]

I can empathise with them - it's a horrible situation. But as I say, it's a fact of life that sometimes bad things happen, and sometimes we have to put chin up and deal with it. In my view those refusing to move are displaying highly selfish and ignorant behaviours.

Why are they? I agree with the council trying to get everybody out but if some choose to stay, at their own risk, surely that's up to them?

 

[najaB]

Well if Kensington Borough council with its huge cash reserves chose to go down the route of cost cutting / taking risks with peoples lives who's to say that cash strapped borough councils haven't gone down the same route?

Again, sixty out of sixty?

 

[bramling]

Why are they? I agree with the council trying to get everybody out but if some choose to stay, at their own risk, surely that's up to them?

Because ultimately it's not just at the own risk. Their presence in the building will increase the risk of others being exposed to danger, not least firefighters in the event that a fire did occur. I think it is very unlikely that the fire service would refuse to attempt a rescue even in these circumstances.

I've not seen anyone on TV articulate a reasoned argument for staying put. All I hear is "it feels safe to me" or "I've lived hear XX years and nothing has happened". I don't see either of these as informed opinions, especially when compared with the advice of the fire service.

How do they think they will get out if a fire starts and the containment principle fails to hold, as it did at Grenfell? Maybe they're happy to be burned alive or gassed to death.

It's also placing an unfair burden on the duty holders who have a duty of care to safety of the building and its occupants.

 

[Busaholic]

The word 'scandalous' gets so used to describe a given situation these days that it has become devalued, but everything that is becoming uncovered about the refurbishment, if not the construction, of residential social housing tower blocks is a true expression of that word. It is quite clear that local councils of all political persuasions, together with charitable housing associations and other bodies, have allowed a dangerous complacency to exist, either through ignorance, incompetence or too great a willingness to accept what so-called 'experts' have been paid to tell them. There have been dissenting voices amongst these experts, of course, who have been warning for years about the inappropriate use of materials, or who have said that some should be banned, but they could be sidelined as 'troublemakers' or mavericks because where was the evidence in the form of a disastrous fire with multiple loss of life? Well, now we have it, and, in the ensuing panic (never a good prerequisite for rational thought and action) some of the actual victims and potential future victims must be scapegoated for being in the way, so that the people who brought this scenario (or their successors, basically of the same mindset) can now show they really are in charge and know what they're doing and, you never know, may find they're personally exonerated in an ensuing enquiry, and may even use it as step in their career advancement.

 

[Dai Corner]

Again, sixty out of sixty?

Now we have a big enough sample to start looking for patterns.

It's hard to understand how this many buildings were clad in inappropriate materials over quite a long period of time without some of the hundreds of people involved realising the potential hazard.

 

[najaB]

It's hard to understand how this many buildings were clad in inappropriate materials over quite a long period of time without some of the hundreds of people involved realising the potential hazard.

It won't be the first time that an 'obvious' hazard has been missed by a lot people until too late. And sadly it's unlikely to be the last.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Again, sixty out of sixty?

Who knows. Lets wait and see.