Today's great fire of London

[wee brian]

Kurnal

If we apply 168 to building sites then they will all have 100% unprotected area. The space sep distances would all go through the the roof and there would be nowhere to build anything.

We could invade France, they have lots of space.

We might need to take a more sophisticated approach.

[nearlythere]

Kurnal
We could invade France, they have lots of space.

If the weather in France is better than this then count me in as part of the spearhead force.

[kurnal]

Wee B you make a good point, of course what I am getting at is that some building methods create a much high fire loading due to radiated heat than others and construction techniques also differ - theres a whole difference between putting up a huge pile of wood and air before installing  any cladding or compartmentation in place compared to a steel frame and cladding - the radiated heat exposure to neighbouring properties  should give us some kind of pointer. But I am all in favour of a practice run to France to discuss over a little wine and cheese.

[Chris Houston]

I would guess that insurers will pay.  And of course pass the costs on to their customers, for insurers tend to make profits and charge more than what ever their losses are.

[wee brian]

It's still cheaper for UK PLC than spending zillions of pounds on fire protection.

[kurnal]

Cheaper should not be a factor. And its not a case of spending money on fire protection. Its all about some methods of construction beiing unsuitable for some building sites due to the nature and proximity of surrounding property. Its about doing EXACTLY what the HASAWA and the FSO 2005 say should be done- considering the effects of your work activities on all persons who could be affected by it.

Nobody has the right to place you and yours at a risk from fire just because it suits them.

Why is such a fundamental principal overlooked just because its a building site?

 I would not be allowed to convert a shop unit in Westfield to a firework factory for obvious reasons but I would be allowed to build a huge potential bonfire next to your house. Principles of protection say avoid the hazard rather than mitigate.

[wee brian]

I think I agree, in principle.

There are ways of using timber frame that isnt quite so sensitive to site fires. So we needn't ban them altogether.

[kurnal]

Agreed. The right method used in the right situation

[Clevelandfire 3]

Who was talking about banning things? No one has suggested we stop timber construction that is more sensitive to fire?

Since when have insurance companies paid up so easily?

Its a very simple problem. Train people not to be so careless on the site or to be more vigillant and youll find fires dont occur so often. Sorry am I talking too much common sense or what? It really is over complicating the issue to suggest methods of construction are to blame for fire. Its the management of the site that decides whether fire will occur or not. End of.

[wee brian]

The management of the site may be able to reduce the risk of a fire but they can't prevent it happening.  If that was possible then there'd be no point putting fire protection in any building.

As Kurnal suggests if the consequences of a particular hazard are too great then just reducing its probability may not be enough.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Poppycock. Of course they can prevent fires or aint that what fire safety is about?. Are you seriously trying to tell me management and vigillence dont play apart in preventing fire opccurring in the first place?

[kurnal]

You said it yourself C3

Train people not to be so careless on the site or to be more vigillant and youll find fires dont occur so often.

But they will occur sometimes - after all 40% of fires are started deliberately. So we have to plan things so that when fires do occur persons are not put in danger. (as you well know you old rogue)

My view is that it is dead easy to calculate the radiated heat from a fire and that a fire in a big stack of timber produces a lot more radiated heat than a fire in the same sized stack of steel and concrete.

We know that the safe limit for radiated heat at the boundary is 0.3 cal/sq cm/second so if the architect does some sums to calculate the size of the pile of timber and applies the formula to determine the radiation emitted by a fire should one occur this will quickly identify those sites where neighbouring properties would be at risk if a fire occurred. In those cases perhaps another method of construction should be used.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Yes I accept all you say, it was just that wee brian was trying to say management cant prevent fires full stop, which is what i took issue with. That is not the case, and in terms of deliberate fires what about increased site security to  try and mitigate that is that not all part and parcel of managing the site and fire safety?