Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann
|
Meanwhile,
Tower cladding tests after Grenfell fire lack transparency, say experts | UK news | The Guardian
Quote:
“The government is fundamentally flawed in its use of the BRE to conduct overly simplistic and limited fire test samples and not the complete cladding assembly,” said Stephen Mackenzie, a fire risk consultant. “The small scale tests on external panels need to to be extended to a full disassembly.”
He said he had observed the removal of panels in three locations, including in Camden, and said he was worried that “we could be pulling off cladding systems that are potentially OK”.
|
My first assumption is that these "fire risk consultants" are shills for the low-cost building industry, the building-industrial complex if you will. But it is true that the fire risk to a whole building is not the same when there are proper firebreaks between panels of cladding. I'm all for some transparency.
Quote:
|
One architect responsible for some of the projects where cladding has been ruled to have failed, asked: “What are they testing to what standard? This could be a massively costly and disruptive error to thousands of residents.”
|
Or self-serving arse-covering cowards.
But my other assumption, which may simultaneously be true, is that the "Government" is engaging in a lot of "Activity" to deflect accusations of not doing anything, while not actually doing the right things. Not enough talk about sprinkler systems or escape routes, for example.