First time in a smoke tower was at the Ontario Hydro facility at Wesleyville, Ontario... had a mask and extinguisher and had to find a fire and put it out. The fire was propane bubbled through water and a they had a smoke generator... first time I realised that in a fire, you couldn't see you hand extended from your face. Smoke hood may not be helpful, except to keep you breathing.
Decent smoke hoods also shield the face from some of the IR preventing the head and face from becoming crispy. Endurance beyond a minute or so may be useless. If the person cannot escape in that time, the rest of them may become crispy. No doubt there are rare instances where a person will be safe from the encroaching fire but not the smoke, but I think those are pretty rare. In this case the escape stairwell may have become unsurvivable from heat, making a smoke hood useless.
I noticed on the Amazon page that came up for smoke-hoods that escape ladders were co-advertised.
The features that would have saved a lot of people was a functioning building alarm and positive pressure ventilation in the escape stairwell.
I wouldn't rush out and just buy any-ole smoke hood. It is true that most fire-related deaths are actually from smoke inhalation, so logically it would seem hoods have their place, such as when laying on the bed in a smoke-filled bedroom awaiting rescue, but it is also logical that immersed in flames isn't going to be one of those places. As 3DDave mentioned, actual escape utility is limited by the smoke itself. you've got to be able to find the exits. They are probably more of a gimmick than of actual use in escaping blindly through a smoke-filled building. Clearing smoke along the exit paths would appear to be an essential objective. I do however expect that they'd be better than water-soaked blankets at door gaps.
French News today just now reported the word is that those panels are the same light-um-up ones that "are banned in the USA".
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
Smoke hood...sounds like another gadget which can't be located in the back of the closet.
There are still some unburnt sections of the facade, so the insulation and panels will be available for scrutiny by the investigators. And then, a comparison with what was specified.
Ok, I dropped that in because I think it's a good idea than can save lives and reduce the impact of smoke inhalation. Repeat "can". It's not a solution to everything by any means, but the information from the fire in London is that there are currently 17 people still in critical condition suffering from smoke inhalation, but the burns unit set up by the hospitals didn't treat anyone. Sure, if the stairwell is full of smoke to the extent that even crawling along the floor you can't see, you're in great danger, but doing it still being able to breathe and not coughing / unable to breathe must be better than not. If you make it to the stairwell then it is a concrete shell hopefully protected by fire doors, but clearly often fills with smoke.
This discussion is going the same way as the argument over bike helmets (push bikes) goes sometimes - Do they protect you in all incidents / major crashes - NO. Do they protect you from minor crashes / falls which otherwise can be life threatening - Yes.
Fires in buildings like this normally take several minutes / hours to fully take hold. That's more than enough time to find your protective devices, especially if you've fitted them next to the door.
Would I rather give my self a decent chance of survival compared to not doing so - yes I would. Would it make a difference in a very fierce fire, probably not, but if 50% or 40% or 30% more people survived or equally survived without life changing injuries caused by smoke inhalation and these devices cost £25 each I think it's a wise investment. My personal view.
Fire protection in many high rise buildings is based on containing the fire allowing time either for extinguishing or an orderly evacuation. Retrofitting sprinklers and hardening the escape routes is going to be expensive and time consuming. All I'm saying is maybe we should also be looking at providing greater protection for those who stay put or need to evacuate to stop people jumping out of windows or throwing children out because they can't breathe.
The argument has been made in aircraft evacuations where there is a much greater issue over the speed of evacuation versus time to find and put on said equipment. Fires in buildings are normally much slower to develop so that argument doesn't hold IMO. If your room is so smoke filled that you can't see anything then you've pretty much had it, but that's an extreme event that takes time to develop unless the fire is in your room, when it's time to get out.
One thing I would like to know is what the design of the windows was with this refurb. I saw a clip on the news yesterday of a different block and it looked like the window ledge and window frame had been extended out along with the insulation, but this meant that any fire inside the insulation would propogate into the building much faster than if the fire was outside the window frame. I haven't seen any close details yet - anyone seen them?
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
... fire resistant cladding was not used (because it would have cost 5k pound more). I still want to understand how fire resistant fire resistant cladding actually is.
Thanks hokie I'd missed that drawing when I went looking before.
This bit looks pretty crucial to me
If I'm not mistaken if the inner insulation catches fire, all you have to stop the fire and smoke entering the individual rooms is a thin strip of something, probably PVC. Maybe even weakens the whole window frame so it falls out??
No visibility of any fire stops or what stops anything from coming between the insulation and the cladding.
This is horrible.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
I have the same feeling. The fire is being blamed on the cladding, which this report says was Reynobond, the kind with a polyethylene core, and of course the cheaper of the options, not intended for high rise buildings. But although that stuff is highly flammable, there is not much of it in terms of thickness to support flame for an extended time. They don't seem to be concentrating on that 150 mm thickness of insulation. You can see it in the photos as a charred mess.
However, I'd guess that the same looks can be achieved with any insulation material. Just shows where the priorities of those overseeing the refurbishment lay.
Well, of course the appearance of the building was a factor. It was grotty looking. But probably more important considerations were the insulation and the leaky windows. The objectives were fine, but the "devil in the details" proved disastrous.
From the Guardian, "Material used in the cladding that covered the Grenfell Tower was the cheaper, more flammable version of the two available options, an investigation of the supply chain has confirmed.
Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.
He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for “fire resistant”."
Raise your hand if you think they purchased it because it looked better.
Expensive or not, replacing deficient cladding on (up to 4000??) tower block buildings may still be cheaper than carrying empty buildings on the books, or demolishing them. Now that the cat's out of the bag, nobody will be willing to live in any with that stuff stuck on them.
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
Cranky... unfortunately, I think you're correct... bit of a difference, in this case the slumlords are the governement which makes me think that there will never be criminal charges filed...
I think that element could get interesting. In England, there was an active policy in the eighties and nineties of trying to move public housing as far out of public ownership and control as possible. Where housing stock could be sold off, it was. Where it couldn't, then management was often passed to third parties. The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (which manages Grenfell Tower) is a case in point.
Any organisation that manages over 9000 residential properties is big business - and can probably afford better lawyers than the Council would be allowed to buy.
