Author Topic: Fire in UK apartment building supposedly caused by oldrefrigerator that exploded  (Read 48206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
It looks lower down in the building from the view in the window.

Your pic is one of the top flats, you can see it's nearly level with the top of the others! I've got a couple of friends who live in high-rise but it their rooms are nothing like your pic, each room is nowhere near that big.

In the burnt out pic, I assume the internal walls have completely burnt away, you can tell by the left behind plumbing.
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
It looks lower down in the building from the view in the window.

Your pic is one of the top flats, you can see it's nearly level with the top of the others! I've got a couple of friends who live in high-rise but it their rooms are nothing like your pic, each room is nowhere near that big.

In the burnt out pic, I assume the internal walls have completely burnt away, you can tell by the left behind plumbing.

If you look in the burnt-out picture you can see a linear heap of ash where the internal walls were. If you look at the other picture you can see that the point of view is of a very wide angle lens (probably one with tilt/shift correction bellows) just not showing the walls which are just out of shot. It's a classic photographers technique for making a room look bigger.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
I wonder what they are going to do now here in the US with their natural gas deal. (If they can't use cladding on old apartment buildings.)


(I wonder how much prices will rise.)

Australians, how much did your energy prices go up when you started exporting your LNG?
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
i hate gas, the only place it should be piped to is power stations.
 

Offline Electro Detective

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2715
  • Country: au
I wonder what they are going to do now here in the US with their natural gas deal. (If they can't use cladding on old apartment buildings.)
(I wonder how much prices will rise.)

Australians, how much did your energy prices go up when you started exporting your LNG?

Don't ask,  getting f***** on all energy prices here   :palm:

and the petrol companies refuse to wear condoms, and give anyone complaining the finger   :o
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2578
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
I wonder what they are going to do now here in the US with their natural gas deal. (If they can't use cladding on old apartment buildings.)
(I wonder how much prices will rise.)

Australians, how much did your energy prices go up when you started exporting your LNG?

Don't ask,  getting f***** on all energy prices here   :palm:

and the petrol companies refuse to wear condoms, and give anyone complaining the finger   :o

Not sure what sorta companies you guys have in Australia. Over here, all our gas stations are on the pill.

I forget who I am sometimes, but then I remember that it's probably not worth remembering.
EEVBlog IRC Admin - Join us on irc.austnet.org #eevblog
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
the biggest problem is government policy's controlled by Israeli's / neo-con's

nothing helps fuel prices like making enemy's of just about anybody with decent resources.
such as Russia,Iran,Venezuela etc.
 >:( :palm:
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
i hate gas, the only place it should be piped to is power stations.
But it's more than twice as efficient to burn the gas directly to generate heat, rather than use it to power a heat engine to generate electricity, then turn it to heat. It's true there's a risk of fire with gas but using much more electricity for heat would increase carbon emissions and the associated risk of huge environmental disasters later.
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
carbon-dioxide = good.

gas is trouble, leaks, carbon-monoxide poisoning, pipes in the way etc.
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00


I'm worried we may see large scale dislocation of families and communities that can no longer afford heat and deforestation in rural areas as people forage for firewood
A pattern thats common elsewhere. The poor in the US until now have largely been able to remain warm due to our so called energy advantage the worlds cheapest natural gas.
It costs a lot more elsewhere and poor people can't afford heat. Germans get free college, up until now Americans have gotten artificially cheap heat and protectionist labor markets that make wages artificially high, is the way they frame it.


>>nothing helps fuel prices like making enemy's of just about anybody with decent resources.
such as Russia,Iran,Venezuela etc.
 >:( :palm:

"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline tronde

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • Country: no
I wonder what they are going to do now here in the US with their natural gas deal. (If they can't use cladding on old apartment buildings.)


You can use non-combustible cladding.
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Been there, done that.

It's called "asbestos". Asbestos shingles last forever. They are fireproof and virtually indestructible. (Asbestos shingles seem to me to be one of its less "friable" forms, but its still classified as hazardous waste. However, good insulative value as shingles, considering their thickness (thinness, really) and non flammable)

A newer hazard very similar to asbestos medically is the hazard created by certain fibrous engineered nanomaterials, especially "high aspect ratio" carbon nanotubes used in composite materials. Also, certain kinds of fires, as well as electrical sparking,  can produce carbon nanotubes in environmentally relevant quantities! 

For example, it was found that the lungs of 9-11 first responders contained CNTs from the WTC disaster. CNTs are being (foolishly I think) added to all kinds of products, including heavy duty "tyres" without enough consideration given to the potential dangers as they are released into the environment. (The combination of CNTs and chemicals known to initiate cancer seems to result in substantially higher rates of carcinogenicity)

And, history repeats itself- CNTs now are also being used in, flame resistant coatings for flammable plastics/foams, etc, including building cladding.   

We need to look at the whole process and not just passing one particular test by causing another long lasting and costly health problem.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 06:22:07 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline amyk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8240
:o At first I thought it a little surprising the amount of damage (and deaths), since the building is concrete and the fire was only on the exterior, but if you realise that the plastic is basically solid petroleum fuel, it helps put things into perspective. I guess the insides were heated enough to also catch fire. Most building fires burn from the inside-out and don't cause as much damage as this...
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
carbon-dioxide = good.
Good how? Fizzy drinks.

Quote
gas is trouble, leaks, carbon-monoxide poisoning, pipes in the way etc.
Yes but you missed the point: gas piped to your home saves energy.

Use double the amount of gas in a power station to power a heating element in your, for double the cost generating double the CO2 emissions and double the environmental impact. Granted you don't have the risk of CO and leaks but there's a greater risk of drought, high food prices, flooding etc.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8973
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
But it's more than twice as efficient to burn the gas directly to generate heat, rather than use it to power a heat engine to generate electricity, then turn it to heat. It's true there's a risk of fire with gas but using much more electricity for heat would increase carbon emissions and the associated risk of huge environmental disasters later.
Modern heat pumps are very efficient, especially after considering how easily they can be zoned. It should be an obvious choice in warmer climates, where A/C is required.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline cdevTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
There are a number of problems.

1: Plastics. If you look at newer construction it makes extensive use of plastics which are not only extremely flammable, (much more so than wood once they get going) they- and toxic smokes they produce once burnt,  also contain endocrine disruptors which are a subject in themselves, These persistent organic chemicals also persist in the environment and build up in living things bodies where they threaten reproduction, cause cancers and neurological problems,  make people morbidly fat and cause metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and an endless list of other health problems, at a huge and growing cost to society (a cost already estimated at 2% of the current EU GDP) and its growing.

2. Fake wood products - again tons of problems, including catastrophic structural failure under some conditions ( "delamination",) offgassing of known carcinogens, tendency to grow toxic molds if used in places where prone to condensation, in the case of some hybrid fiber/plastic products, offgassing of vapors some of which have similar problems to 1, and so on. 

3.) Foams which contain plastics are very strong and very light but need to be protected from flame. Also many contain

4.) flame retardant chemicals that may be just as dangerous as fires.

5.) In the US, especially, paper covered gypsum wallboard, and mold. Molds produce some of the most toxic/carcinogenic/potentially health destroying chemicals known to mankind when subjected to (very) high humidity conditions.


There are some obvious solutions - Modern energy efficient windows can drastically improve the live-ability of older buildings and are a really good investment.  But, what to frame them with?

Larger, existing buildings are not so easy to retrofit.   
for example, -look at what happened to the vinyl windows at grenfell.

New construction can be energy efficient but relies too greatly on the materials mentioned which are problematic.

Passive solar design can make *homes* that require little heating and cooling much of the year, much of that they need can be provided by powered ventilation and in some cases, the ground, which stays at a fairly constant temperature - in small dwellings, that reservoir can be utilized for both heating and cooling. 

But for ideological reasons, starting with the shift in the 90s and the WTO agreement on services, now governments can't/don't want to help families that need them get services, they are forced to hire commercial firms, so the solution of building well built homes for families has been put out of reach, and indeed, all forms of subsidized services, if they have not already, will likely soon run into problems in trade agreements.. Basically, governments have signed and are signing giant worldwide permanent, irreversible non-compete agreements with multinational corporations that cant be fixed by voting once services are deregulated. (So the deregulatory changes now going on in health care in the US and UK will become permanent, due to the deals "ratchet' an important fact Americans and Britons are being denied)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 04:25:57 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
But it's more than twice as efficient to burn the gas directly to generate heat, rather than use it to power a heat engine to generate electricity, then turn it to heat. It's true there's a risk of fire with gas but using much more electricity for heat would increase carbon emissions and the associated risk of huge environmental disasters later.
Modern heat pumps are very efficient, especially after considering how easily they can be zoned. It should be an obvious choice in warmer climates, where A/C is required.
So not the best choice for the UK and no good for cooking food.
 

Offline stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2153
  • Country: gb
carbon-dioxide = good.
Good how? Fizzy drinks.

you like breathing dont you?
plants create oxygen, and they feed on carbon-dioxide.

good for putting out fires too.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2578
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
carbon-dioxide = good.
Good how? Fizzy drinks.

you like breathing dont you?
plants create oxygen, and they feed on carbon-dioxide.

good for putting out fires too.

While CO2 might be beneficial in some respects, pumping enormous amounts into the atmosphere isn't a great idea.

Not to mention most of our oxygen comes from the oceans, not from land plants.
I forget who I am sometimes, but then I remember that it's probably not worth remembering.
EEVBlog IRC Admin - Join us on irc.austnet.org #eevblog
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
carbon-dioxide = good.
Good how? Fizzy drinks.

you like breathing dont you?
plants create oxygen, and they feed on carbon-dioxide.

good for putting out fires too.

While CO2 might be beneficial in some respects, pumping enormous amounts into the atmosphere isn't a great idea.

Not to mention most of our oxygen comes from the oceans, not from land plants.
Some plants are also damaged by high levels of CO2.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

Coral bleaching, drought and milder winters (insufficient chilling: many temperate plants need a period of low temperatures to grow properly) are also bad for plants.
 

Offline tronde

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • Country: no
Been there, done that.

It's called "asbestos". Asbestos shingles last forever. They are fireproof and virtually indestructible.

No, asbestos is illegal. You use mineral wool that is something completely different instead of the plastic foam and aluminium sheets as weather protection.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19345
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Been there, done that.

It's called "asbestos". Asbestos shingles last forever. They are fireproof and virtually indestructible.

No, asbestos is illegal. You use mineral wool that is something completely different instead of the plastic foam and aluminium sheets as weather protection.
Asbestos may be illegal in Europe but it's still legal in other countries. It was used in the UK up to the end of the 90s and can still be found in many old buildings.
 

Offline MK14

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4527
  • Country: gb
i'm not talking about the depleted uranium used as tail-end ballast.

i'm talking about the drums of chemicals on board.
incase you dont remember, i do!
the plane had problems, but refused to land at the nearest airport and tried to make it to a military base - obviously failing.
a later investigation found it was transporting banned chemicals and didnt want to risk being searched at a civilian airfield.

I haven't found a definitive answer. But the following one, generally disagrees (that there were dangerous/toxic chemicals), but does leave some possibility of doubt.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/nerve-gas-element-was-in-el-al-plane-lost-in-1992-crash.html

tl;dr
Drums = YES
But UNSAFE/TOXIC = NO

But then official answers "COULD" be wrong or trying to hide stuff. Hence the hopefully slight doubt.

Two quotes from that article:
Quote
The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported on Wednesday that the plane was carrying about 50 gallons of dimethyl methylphosphonate, which the paper said was enough to produce 594 pounds of sarin.

The newspaper printed a copy of what it said was a freight document showing that the material came from Solkatronic Chemicals Inc. in Morrisville, Pa., and was sent to the Institute for Biological Research in the Israeli town of Ness Ziona, south of Tel Aviv. The institute's work is a closely guarded secret in Israel.
Quote
But a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the chemical was not toxic and had been ordered by Israel to test gas masks and other filters designed to protect against chemical agents.

Dimethyl methylphosphonate is a schedule 2 substance under the Chemical Weapons Convention*. This flight is timed suspiciously close to the time when it would have become illegal for the US to export DMMP to Israel (a non-ratifying nation and hence banned as a recipient of schedule 2 substances). Looks like the Israelis were exploiting a 'last chance to buy'. Timing in the run-up to the CWC signature and ratification by the US would be politically embarrassing for the US, so it's easy to see why the Israelis were trying to keep as quiet as possible about what they had on board.

The claim that it is not toxic is laughable - Sigma-Aldrich list the following PPE to be used while handling it:  Eyeshields, Faceshields, full-face respirator (US), Gloves, multi-purpose combination respirator cartridge (US), type ABEK (EN14387) respirator filter and call it out as "Hazardous to Health". It's an organophosphate, a class of substances that are notorious for their toxicity.

The claim that dimethyl methylphosphonate was for testing gas masks sounds highly suspect, there are plenty of substances suitable for testing gas masks that aren't nerve gas precursors. According to the same report other Sarin precursors were on the plane, one crucial precursor was missing. I'll have a bet the missing precursor was one one that's easy to get - isopropanol. So, more likely this was a half truth. They were going to make Sarin, but they weren't going make enough for military use, only enough for gas mask testing (and perhaps a bit left over for the odd MOSSAD assasination).

*
Quote from: Wikipedia
Schedule 2 substances, in the sense of the Chemical Weapons Convention, are chemicals that can either be used as chemical weapons themselves or used in the manufacture of chemical weapons but that have small-scale applications outside of chemical warfare and so can be legitimately manufactured in small quantities. An example is thiodiglycol, which can be used in the manufacture of mustard agents but is also used as a solvent in inks.

Manufacture must be declared as their production is subject to declaration to the OPCW per Part VII of the "Verification Annex", and they may not be exported to countries that are not party to the Convention

We are going outside of my knowledge base here, but I will try to give an opinion, anyway.

There seem to be two different points, so I will try to separate them out, and discuss them separately.
(1)...Was the chemicals toxic in their own right, as they were (BEFORE being made into chemical weapons or used for other purposes).
(2)...Politics of Israel and those substances.

(1)...Barrels toxicity
If my (limited) understanding is correct. They were basically safe and relatively non-highly toxic. Because they did not have ALL the ingredients to make deadly Sarin, and they would have needed to be correctly processed together, to make Sarin.
So it was ok for those barrels to be there (ignoring politics/Israel).

(2)...Politics of Israel and Chemical weapons
This should be too off-topic to this thread, undesirable on EEVblog (Politics = NO) and not really connected to my original point. Which is that the barrels are basically safe and non-toxic.
When I say "SAFE", that does NOT include future possible uses, to make Chemical weapons etc. Just that it was "safe" in the air accident and crash situation.

Ideally/really NO country should have Chemical Weapons.
We can't discuss (2) anymore, because it is too off-topic in this thread, and would be likely to close the thread and/or get posters into trouble.
Which is fine by me, as there are plenty of other avenues to discuss politics.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 06:08:42 pm by MK14 »
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16272
  • Country: za
This was a factory that handled wax, and burnt for a few days before the fire was put out. They are still skimming off wax from the waterways, 3 months after this fire, the canal still has a Dali scheme to it, complete with massive wax sculptures all along the banks.

As to the OP, tragic fire, and yes petroleum products do burn incredibly well once lit, and being vertical only helps the fire spread,  Looks like the only reason the building still stands is the concrete columns are so thick that even with massive spalling and thermal cracking they still have enough integrity left to hold up the floors, and the floor castings are probably pre stressed concrete, so they probably are only being held together by this pre stressed steel in the lower third of the floor thickness. Building likely will be condemned and torn down, no way short of stress testing each floor to rated must survive load to check, and it would be safer to tear it down than hope it survives that test.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8973
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
So not the best choice for the UK and no good for cooking food.
You might be surprised to learn how inefficient a gas stove is - on the order of 40%. Compare that to about 75% for induction. Electric resistance can do even better at over 80% under the right conditions, but drops off very quickly under less than ideal conditions.
http://ecorenovator.org/forum/41632-post56.html

Induction also has a big advantage in that it is least likely to ignite spilled oil. That's the main reason it has become so common in commercial kitchens - less fire risk means lower insurance costs.

There also exist solid state heat pumps that can operate to the boiling point and beyond. I once came across a tabletop water heater that used that technology, mainly used for brewing coffee/tea or having a large supply of near boiling water to quickly start cooking.

Keep in mind that in residential, cooking is not a particularly large use of energy (it is a large demand for peak power), and hence why buying an induction cooker purely for its energy efficiency is unlikely to pay off.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf