4 ms·

> Unimaginable in the US With good reason. Building codes in the US prevent disasters like the one that happened at Grenfell Towers in the UK. Run plenum-rate

> Unimaginable in the US With good reason. Building codes in the US prevent disasters like the one that happened at Grenfell Towers in the UK. Run plenum-rated wires through an appropriate space for safety's sake.

xnorswap 2y ago
UK building codes (we call them building regulations) should also have prevented Grenfell. A large issue was that the companies involved were using materials which weren't up to code.
- londons_explore 2y ago
  Specifically, they stuck to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. (made an 'equivalent' fireproof product, which legally didn't need retesting, but in fact performed far worse) Same with VW and dieselgate. (made a car which did well when tested, but badly in the real world) The pattern is that complex regulations always have loopholes, when far better would be to wipe out all the regulations and simply put in prison people who don't take sufficient care of the environment or other peoples lives. Let courts decide what is insufficient care on a case by case basis.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I’m sure construction workers/supervisors/engineers would love the idea of having all of their decisions be subject to judgment by lawyers or a jury.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    > The pattern is that complex regulations always have loopholes I think the pattern is that regulations that prevent people who have money from making more money will always have loopholes lobbied into them, and thereby become complex. But the complexity is an effect, not a cause or really the problem. The problem is that they are going to make sure that a particular unsafe product or unsafe use of a product, that is known to be unsafe in other jurisdictions and banned, will not be stopped if subverting the legislation costs less than doing the unsafe thing will benefit. I think specifically for Grenfell that the fact that the material was banned for that usage elsewhere created the pressure to lobby to maintain that unsafe usage in Britain. If they hadn't been able to sell it as cladding, they probably would have had to shut down production of it altogether. And iirc it still would probably have been safe enough if it hadn't had a horrible corner cut installation that resulted in leaving flammable trash behind the cladding, and gaps. This was not a design failure for difficult to devise regulation, this was a government failure, fueled by multiple layers of corruption. Putting it on the wording of the regulations, and implying that the problem is that regulations are inherently hard to write is just an apology for the guilty. If anything, the difficulty of writing a lot of legislation is the difficulty of making it ineffective for the thing that it is purporting to regulate, but can't, because you've been bribed in some way. It's like the difficulty of writing RFPs that will only apply to a particular company that you've already agreed to award a contract to. It leads to complexity. There's a reason why political jobs where you get to award contracts or write legislation cost more to get than they pay. > Same with VW and dieselgate. (made a car which did well when tested, but badly in the real world) But this wasn't just a testing failure, this was people intentionally cheating on the test. > wipe out all the regulations and simply put in prison people who don't take sufficient care of the environment or other peoples lives. Let courts decide what is insufficient care on a case by case basis. The result of this would be extremely wealthy judges, prosecutors and judges and prosecutors families, you going to prison when you do something that was totally allowed, and rich men never even being indicted.
    - worik 2y ago
      > There's a reason why political jobs where you get to award contracts or write legislation cost more to get than they pay. That is extraordinary. Not necessarily false. Surely we can do better?
macspoofing 2y ago
> Building codes in the US prevent disasters like the one that happened at Grenfell Towers in the UK US building codes are pretty good and well enforced, just as they are in the UK ... but even with that, you have a Surfside condominium collapse - so not perfect.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Surfside was almost a half-century old, so the building codes were surely different back then. Also, building codes concern how to design and build a structure; they aren't going to help much with terrible maintenance.
renewiltord 2y ago
Yeah, one of the things that makes disasters impossible in the US is that we have real Professional Engineers with Iron Rings doing everything. If you don’t have an iron ring, you can’t really understand what it takes to build a thing in the real world. You can play with your software or whatever but you’re not going to reliably change the real world. Even Ghost Ship had no iron rings present. That’s what got them. You need those rings. One of my friends has one on each finger. A true 10x Professional Engineer. Nothing he has ever built has a single flaw.
- pkaye 2y ago
  Iron rings is for Canadian engineers.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    But they were, all of them, deceived for another ring was made.
  - mustntmumble 2y ago
    Huh, today I learned about Iron Rings! Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring
potato3732842 2y ago
The code is just as bought and paid for by the materials manufactuers in the US as it is anywhere else. They get fiery but mostly peaceful apartment building siding, we get spray foam and rotten roofs.
- mapt 2y ago
  Polyurethane spray foam is pretty damn fiery in most conditions, even if the right number of carcinogenic flame retardants can limit open flame spread on a surface. It's also got the most toxic, thick sort of smoke of the available options, other than the polyiso in Grenfall. There are two inherently fire-safe, inexpensive insulation options, borated cellulose and mineral wool. You can even use them as fire-stops. Neither are good to use in an application where they receive rain. Polystyrene and fiberglass get runner up status because they melt & retreat from a fire at sub-ignition temperature, which doesn't spread the flame but does open up the wall.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Fire departments generally love foam because while it does burn it fills entire spaces and prevents fire spread and limits exhaust of combustion byproducts (which limits oxygen intake on the other end). What would have been total losses turn into minor repair and smoke damage rehab. I'm still not a fan though.
    - trogdor 2y ago
      > What would have been total losses turn into minor repair and smoke damage rehab. In my (admittedly minimal) experience as a volunteer firefighter, “minor repair and smoke damage rehab” isn’t a thing once a fire is progresses handheld fire extinguishers. Water causes a massive amount of damage, and you often need to rip apart walls and floors - with water sometimes joining the party - in order to ensure the fire is fully extinguished.

xnorswap 2y ago

UK building codes (we call them building regulations) should also have prevented Grenfell. A large issue was that the companies involved were using materials which weren't up to code.

londons_explore 2y ago
Specifically, they stuck to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. (made an 'equivalent' fireproof product, which legally didn't need retesting, but in fact performed far worse) Same with VW and dieselgate. (made a car which did well when tested, but badly in the real world) The pattern is that complex regulations always have loopholes, when far better would be to wipe out all the regulations and simply put in prison people who don't take sufficient care of the environment or other peoples lives. Let courts decide what is insufficient care on a case by case basis.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I’m sure construction workers/supervisors/engineers would love the idea of having all of their decisions be subject to judgment by lawyers or a jury.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > The pattern is that complex regulations always have loopholes I think the pattern is that regulations that prevent people who have money from making more money will always have loopholes lobbied into them, and thereby become complex. But the complexity is an effect, not a cause or really the problem. The problem is that they are going to make sure that a particular unsafe product or unsafe use of a product, that is known to be unsafe in other jurisdictions and banned, will not be stopped if subverting the legislation costs less than doing the unsafe thing will benefit. I think specifically for Grenfell that the fact that the material was banned for that usage elsewhere created the pressure to lobby to maintain that unsafe usage in Britain. If they hadn't been able to sell it as cladding, they probably would have had to shut down production of it altogether. And iirc it still would probably have been safe enough if it hadn't had a horrible corner cut installation that resulted in leaving flammable trash behind the cladding, and gaps. This was not a design failure for difficult to devise regulation, this was a government failure, fueled by multiple layers of corruption. Putting it on the wording of the regulations, and implying that the problem is that regulations are inherently hard to write is just an apology for the guilty. If anything, the difficulty of writing a lot of legislation is the difficulty of making it ineffective for the thing that it is purporting to regulate, but can't, because you've been bribed in some way. It's like the difficulty of writing RFPs that will only apply to a particular company that you've already agreed to award a contract to. It leads to complexity. There's a reason why political jobs where you get to award contracts or write legislation cost more to get than they pay. > Same with VW and dieselgate. (made a car which did well when tested, but badly in the real world) But this wasn't just a testing failure, this was people intentionally cheating on the test. > wipe out all the regulations and simply put in prison people who don't take sufficient care of the environment or other peoples lives. Let courts decide what is insufficient care on a case by case basis. The result of this would be extremely wealthy judges, prosecutors and judges and prosecutors families, you going to prison when you do something that was totally allowed, and rich men never even being indicted.
  - worik 2y ago
    > There's a reason why political jobs where you get to award contracts or write legislation cost more to get than they pay. That is extraordinary. Not necessarily false. Surely we can do better?

macspoofing 2y ago

> Building codes in the US prevent disasters like the one that happened at Grenfell Towers in the UK US building codes are pretty good and well enforced, just as they are in the UK ... but even with that, you have a Surfside condominium collapse - so not perfect.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Surfside was almost a half-century old, so the building codes were surely different back then. Also, building codes concern how to design and build a structure; they aren't going to help much with terrible maintenance.

renewiltord 2y ago

Yeah, one of the things that makes disasters impossible in the US is that we have real Professional Engineers with Iron Rings doing everything. If you don’t have an iron ring, you can’t really understand what it takes to build a thing in the real world. You can play with your software or whatever but you’re not going to reliably change the real world. Even Ghost Ship had no iron rings present. That’s what got them. You need those rings. One of my friends has one on each finger. A true 10x Professional Engineer. Nothing he has ever built has a single flaw.

pkaye 2y ago
Iron rings is for Canadian engineers.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  But they were, all of them, deceived for another ring was made.
- mustntmumble 2y ago
  Huh, today I learned about Iron Rings! Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring

potato3732842 2y ago

The code is just as bought and paid for by the materials manufactuers in the US as it is anywhere else. They get fiery but mostly peaceful apartment building siding, we get spray foam and rotten roofs.

mapt 2y ago
Polyurethane spray foam is pretty damn fiery in most conditions, even if the right number of carcinogenic flame retardants can limit open flame spread on a surface. It's also got the most toxic, thick sort of smoke of the available options, other than the polyiso in Grenfall. There are two inherently fire-safe, inexpensive insulation options, borated cellulose and mineral wool. You can even use them as fire-stops. Neither are good to use in an application where they receive rain. Polystyrene and fiberglass get runner up status because they melt & retreat from a fire at sub-ignition temperature, which doesn't spread the flame but does open up the wall.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Fire departments generally love foam because while it does burn it fills entire spaces and prevents fire spread and limits exhaust of combustion byproducts (which limits oxygen intake on the other end). What would have been total losses turn into minor repair and smoke damage rehab. I'm still not a fan though.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    > What would have been total losses turn into minor repair and smoke damage rehab. In my (admittedly minimal) experience as a volunteer firefighter, “minor repair and smoke damage rehab” isn’t a thing once a fire is progresses handheld fire extinguishers. Water causes a massive amount of damage, and you often need to rip apart walls and floors - with water sometimes joining the party - in order to ensure the fire is fully extinguished.