Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Steve]

Jeebus all that straw is more a fire hazard than a CONEX full of lithium


A barrister tried that tactic on me once. It didn't work.

Were some fava beans and a nice chianti involved?

 

[Steve]

NFPA has published a rather comprehensive report, dated July 2020, on parking structure fires that includes an analysis that is way more detailed than can be summarized for Vixen here - fire spread, concrete spalling (not melting ), structural failure, electric vehicles, fire department response times, etc. Not sure if it is available to non-members, but anyone with a genuine interest would do well to read it.

https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-...rds-in-parking-garages-vehicle-carriers?l=107

This report includes a number of references to the investigation of the Liverpool fire.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

NFPA has published a rather comprehensive report, dated July 2020, on parking structure fires that includes an analysis that is way more detailed than can be summarized for Vixen here - fire spread, concrete spalling (not melting ), structural failure, electric vehicles, fire department response times, etc. Not sure if it is available to non-members, but anyone with a genuine interest would do well to read it.

https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-...rds-in-parking-garages-vehicle-carriers?l=107

This report includes a number of references to the investigation of the Liverpool fire.

Are there any accountants available that can sum up the report for us? I'd like an expert's opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Tell me you've never lived through a single snowy season in your entire life without telling me.

You have three options: Preempt the entire season, and throw your tires on in September or October, instead of waiting until November. Or, when the first light snows begin, drive to the garage while conditions still permit it. Or, if caught by surprise by a heavy early snowfall, wait it out, then drive to the garage once conditions are again favorable, and before they become unfavorable for the rest of the season.

The text of the law linked upthread clearly allows for driver discretion during the legally-mandated snow tires period, unless conditions require snow tires. It follows that the law recognizes that conditions may vary from place to place and time to time during the period, and that the law expects drivers to make their own determination as to when snow tires are required for the driving conditions they anticipate.

Honestly, the law seems poorly worded to me. If the requirement is calendar-based, then driver discretion about driving conditions should not be permitted during the legally mandated period. On the other hand, if the requirement is condition-based, then it should be in effect year-round, not restricted to an artificial calendar "season".

My guess is that the law is intended to give drivers full discretion as to driving conditions and snow tire requirements, while still providing a legal basis for telling drivers they should know better, if harm arises from them driving without snow tires during the depths of winter.

I can easily imagine a Finn in midwinter, driving from his urban center home to his urban center garage, where the streets are plowed and de-iced and the conditions are fine for non-snow tires. And I can imagine him getting snow tires put on at the garage, in preparation for his planned drive out of the city, over the river and through the woods, to his winter cabin or relative's home or somewhere else where he anticipates snow tire conditions.

Just catching up. This gave me a good chuckle. Snow here is not like in England or the US, where it is here today and gone tomorrow, or even a couple of days later. Best accept that snow is here to stay for the next four months and gradually will get higher and higher...and higher. There is no lull in which you can just nip over to the garage for the correct tyres.

 

[Vixen]

To return to this, in case you missed my post above, the highlighted is factually incorrect. Firefighters (noting, in passing, your odd use of the broader term 'employees', implying a universal prohibition, which also doesn't exist) are not forbidden to talk to the press. They are expected to be discreet, and not comment on anything contentious or sensitive (for example, but not limited to, the identity of a victim before relatives have been informed), but they are allowed to talk to members of the press at the location or who contact the fire station. The mainstream press, in this instance the local paper, regularly contacts the fire station and asks for information about any recent incidents, they don't wait for official press reports (and the fire service have better things to do than issue a report for every incident)

How do I know this? I spoke to a serving firefighter, who happens to be my son, and he explained the situation. I also know, independently, that he has spoken to the press, since I also know a local press photographer who regularly reports on incidents that require the emergency services to attend, and he's mentioned that he's spoken to my son.

What I said in far fewer words. Great anecdata though, where n = 1.


"Gee, thanks for backing me up, Son!"


"That's OK, Dad. Let me know if you need any more help with debating points."

 

[phiwum]

As you know, employees are not allowed to speak to the press. Plus the mainstream press rely on official press reports.

To return to this, in case you missed my post above, the highlighted is factually incorrect. Firefighters (noting, in passing, your odd use of the broader term 'employees', implying a universal prohibition, which also doesn't exist) are not forbidden to talk to the press. They are expected to be discreet, and not comment on anything contentious or sensitive (for example, but not limited to, the identity of a victim before relatives have been informed), but they are allowed to talk to members of the press at the location or who contact the fire station. The mainstream press, in this instance the local paper, regularly contacts the fire station and asks for information about any recent incidents, they don't wait for official press reports (and the fire service have better things to do than issue a report for every incident)

What I said in far fewer words. Great anecdata though, where n = 1.


"Gee, thanks for backing me up, Son!"


"That's OK, Dad. Let me know if you need any more help with debating points."

He clearly, obviously, emphatically did not say what you said. You said they were not allowed to speak to the press. That is not the case, though they are limited in what they should discuss.

 

[Vixen]

Large exterior parts of modern cars are made of plastic.
Large wrap around bumpers, wheel arch liners, engine and body under trays, decorating trim etc. Then there's the rubber tyres actually in contact with the ground where any burning fuel would be located.

It doesn't require actual contact with anything burning to ignite a car, radiated heat can be enough to melt and ignite any of the plastic and rubber parts.
Even pain is plastic based and burns really well.

Whilst plastics can be highly inflammable, simple plastics as in your ready meal plastic container, simply burns out very rapidly, shrinking and melting and rarely has time to make nearby metals catch fire.

The interior of a car is of tougher mettle, but you'll find that EV vehicles are not made of the type of plastic you might have in mind with your claim it would ignite via 'radiated heat' .

The materials used for the body of an electric car include aluminum alloy , epoxy and glass fiber composite , and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics (CFRPs) and glass-fiber-reinforced plastics (GFRPs) . Additionally, a high polymer material is used for the exterior trimming parts of the car body . Another composite material is used for the car body, which includes a car body main body, a front engine cover, a front bumper, and a back door . These materials are chosen for their lightweight properties, strength, and corrosion resistance, meeting the requirements for electric car bodies.

Scispace

What is the temperature required for a GFRP - as EV car bodies are largely comprised - for it to ignite?

What temperature does Carbon Fibre Composites combust?

Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
Best insight from top research papers
Carbon fiber composites combust at temperatures above 600°C .

Scispace


Rubber tyres. Are you sure these would almost immediately catch fire?

Tires are not prone to self-ignition, as a tire must be heated to at least 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit) for a period of several minutes prior to ignition.

wiki

 

[Vixen]

He clearly, obviously, emphatically did not say what you said. You said they were not allowed to speak to the press. That is not the case, though they are limited in what they should discuss.

It is obvious what I meant. And the proof is in the pudding. There were at least 100 firefighters actively present putting out the Luton Airport Fire and I could find only one firefighter giving an anonymous opinion to the press about it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whilst plastics can be highly inflammable, simple plastics as in your ready meal plastic container, simply burns out very rapidly, shrinking and melting and rarely has time to make nearby metals catch fire.

The interior of a car is of tougher mettle, but you'll find that EV vehicles are not made of the type of plastic you might have in mind with your claim it would ignite via 'radiated heat' .

Scispace

What is the temperature required for a GFRP - as EV car bodies are largely comprised - for it to ignite?

Scispace


Rubber tyres. Are you sure these would almost immediately catch fire?

wiki

Glass fibre and Carbon composite is not used in the bodywork of everyday EVs the vast majority are steel pressed bodies.
I am aware of the combustion characteristics of the injection moulded plastics used in the vast majority of car body trim parts.

Also, glass fibre burns extremely well.


Yes, tyres will burn easily.

 

[Mojo]

There were at least 100 firefighters actively present putting out the Luton Airport Fire and I could find only one firefighter giving an anonymous opinion to the press about it.

No, you didn't find one, otherwise you would have been able to link to it, or at least say where it had been published.

 

[Vixen]

To add to Jay's response, I dispute your claim that "a large percentage" come from such backgrounds, and I ask for evidence. Again with the caveat that I only practiced for a couple of years, I never knew of anyone either at school or at work with such previous experience. Counting my professors, I'm reasonably certain that I knew at least 25 accountants (and probably significantly more) well enough that I would have known if they'd had math, science, or economics backgrounds.

I do, however, have two friends who became accountants after I stopped being one. One of them had gotten a math teaching degree, but decided he didn't want to teach, so he went through the same bachelors-level certificate program I did in order to sit for the CPA exam. The other was a former nuclear power technician in the US Navy who later worked at a civilian nuclear plant. He married an accountant, and when they decided to move back to Indiana, as there are no nuclear plants here, he got an accounting degree, and they now have their own accounting firm. But I would argue that my friends' being accountants is at best only tangentially related to their previous training.




You're mainly talking about operational research^* here, which the Science Council does recognize as a science. But it's not accounting.
_____
^*Operations research in American parlance.

I think I can see where the confusion lies. In the US to be able to sit the CPA exams you need to first graduate with a bachelors or masters degree in Accounting. In the UK, it doesn't work like that. Students tend to take traditional subjects for undergraduate study. Few choose 'Accounting' or 'Business Studies' unless they have decided on a career at an early age (usually about 18). How it works in the UK is via the accountancy employers who recruit a regular intake of trainees. The bigger firms such as Deloittes, KPMG, Grant Thornton, etc., etc., generally have limited places and thus being an employer's market with a large number of applicants, they tend to select the ones which have 'numerate' degrees, (for example, my niece graduated in maths and got taken on by Deloittes), although to be fair, it can be any degree at all if the applicant shows the right level of eagerness and enthusiasm should they be lucky enough to get an interview. Law is considered a 'traditional' degree, but many lawyers actually go through the route of graduating in an unrelated degree all together and then do a one or two year law 'conversion' course. As these are vocational, it is often important to find an employer to take you on for the mandatory CPD needed as well pay for the tuition and exams which are expensive. Often there will be a clause that you are sacked if you fail an exam and the resit. So you can see why it tends to be those strong in exam-passing skills.

Where you are, people seem to have chosen the Accounting option from the outset so it is no surprise there is little scientific background in those accountants.

 

[Vixen]

You claimed you were a scientist. This whole debate ensued because you thought you could make some categorical argument in favor of that claim, when asked to provide your credentials. As usual, you couldn't decide which part of your academic career to embellish. You tried to tell us you were a scientist because you had taken science-oriented classes as an undergraduate. You tried to tell us your "Master's equivalent" vocational training in accounting made you a scientist because accounting is a science.

No part of your education and experience makes you a scientist, regardless of the paths taken by others. But ultimately you are not a scientist because you cannot display any scientific literacy, knowledge, or skill. No categorical argument fixes that. And insofar as your arguments are premised on your personal ability to reason scientifically, those arguments do not hold up.



You've provided no data to support this claim. And it is irrelevant in any case. If what they did before they became accountants qualifies them as scientists, they are scientists. But because of that, not because of anything to do with accountancy. People who weren't scientists before they became accountants do not become scientists by virtue of studying and practicing accounting.



You cite examples of science done by scientists with observable and testable aspects of business operations as their subject. This does not mean that "running a business" is a science. The scientific method can be applied to study a large spectrum of activity. That does not mean that those who engage in the studied activities are scientists.

No, this came about because YOU demanded to know what my qualifications were and squeezed the information out of me, interrogating me as to their content. I don't think they are relevant on a chat forum discussing a current affairs topic.

If I were to say I was an artist, can you dispute that? No. Just as you cannot dispute my being a scientist.

 

[Vixen]

If I may don my historian's hat for a moment, the main competitor to the Post Office only fifteen years after Peece's comment was in fact The London District Messenger Service and News Company which, at it's peak, employed over 1,100 boys (usually 13-15) to carry messages and small packages around the city of London and environs.
They commonly appeared in period fiction (including Sherlock Holmes), inspired a game, a musical comedy and a magazine serial.

When I worked in banking the job title 'Messenger' was bona fide and their job was exactly as in their job title, albeit usually quite elderly.

 

[Vixen]

Jeebus all that straw is more a fire hazard than a CONEX full of lithium


A barrister tried that tactic on me once. It didn't work.

So that's a 'no'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is obvious what I meant. And the proof is in the pudding. There were at least 100 firefighters actively present putting out the Luton Airport Fire and I could find only one firefighter giving an anonymous opinion to the press about it.

You failed to demonstrate you really did find a firefighter talking to the press, and didn't just half-remember some blowhard nutter holding forth on twitter.

Remember? You claimed he said it looked like an EV fire but the whole building would have been ablaze by the time his fire station attended so such opinion would have been worthless even if it was real.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

He clearly, obviously, emphatically did not say what you said. You said they were not allowed to speak to the press. That is not the case, though they are limited in what they should discuss.

It isn't even fewer words.

 

[phiwum]

It is obvious what I meant. And the proof is in the pudding. There were at least 100 firefighters actively present putting out the Luton Airport Fire and I could find only one firefighter giving an anonymous opinion to the press about it.

Ah. I guess you meant that employees invariably cannot speak to the press.

 

[phiwum]

If I were to say I was an artist, can you dispute that? No. Just as you cannot dispute my being a scientist.

Hear, hear!

I am, by the way, a despot.

No, wait. I meant sexpot.

Anyway, that's how I professionally identify and there is no gainsaying it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hear, hear!

I am, by the way, a despot.

No, wait. I meant sexpot.

Anyway, that's how I professionally identify and there is no gainsaying it.

This thread is better if you're on pot. Just sayin.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If I were to say I was an artist, can you dispute that? No. Just as you cannot dispute my being a scientist.

I'm an accountant and you can't dispute that.