3 ms·

I think we are in agreement. From what I remember, Kingspan changed their formulation and didn't repeat the fire testing. Again, how is it you are allowed to

I think we are in agreement. From what I remember, Kingspan changed their formulation and didn't repeat the fire testing. Again, how is it you are allowed to do your own testing, rather than submit samples regularly to a test house? Or perhaps products on higher risk buildings should be spot checked. A sample from the jobsite itself could be tested. Self- regulation is a joke.

michaelt 3y ago
Well, they did submit samples to a test house - the Buildings Research Establishment - for fire safety testing. And they got safety certifications from independent bodies like LABC. Just you know, it turns out while the test rigs were being built, the BRE might have looked the other way while someone put fireproof magnesium oxide boards over the temperature sensors. And when the manufacturer sent 'all the test results' to LABC for the certification, they didn't include the tests that ended in "a raging inferno". You see, that test was terminated early, so it wasn't a completed test. And when the manufacturer got the certificate granted, which included a bunch of caveats about how the material specifically had to be used, they immediately quoted it in their marketing materials without any of those caveats. Of course all this fraud was done by some 18 year old junior employee, who was told it was 'industry standard behaviour' by a mid-level employee (who has conveniently since died) and the CEO had 'absolutely no idea' this was going on right under his nose.