i think everyone agrees the cladding is bad.
the disagreement is who's going to pay for it to be replaced?
i think everyone agrees the cladding is bad.
the disagreement is who's going to pay for it to be replaced?
[QUOTE]Isn’t this the same cladding that has the equivalent chemical energy per square metre as over a litre of petrol? I’m not sure I would want a fuel tanker on the outside of anywhere I live! [/QUOTE
Naaaaah, don't be daft, what right thinking person would allow that to happen in this day & age?
Eeeerrrr hang on a mo Mr 4bee!
What about Manufacturers, Consulting Engineers, Building Standards, Architects, Fire Brigade, Council "Inspectors" , Builders, Tradies, Final Acceptance sign off & probably a few more "Experts"????
Oh yeah, I see what you mean.[biggrin]
In this day and age of equality and fairness .. make them all pay!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Why discriminate against anyone?
The cladding is over a lot of buildings, but we won't be told where.
Flammable cladding: Public won't be informed of high fire risk apartments
I read that there are actually two versions of the cladding, one is flammable and the more expensive version has insulation. Naturally, the builders choose the cheaper flammable version.
In lab tests, the 'not so flammable' cladding just takes a minute or two longer to catch fire - it still burns unfortunately. To put it into context, it would be like comparing a newer lambourghini to an older Ferrari as to which gets to 100kph quicker (ignition). Now compare both of those to an old schoolbus (proper insulation)....
https://youtu.be/ZSzOd__feIwQuote:
Originally Posted by cripesamighty
Woo hoo! Gotta get me one of those!
Comments were made by investigators that the fire was probably started with a discarded cigarette butt, how many fires/bushfires are started by careless smokers?