In the previous post I made predictions about what would be in the report, or rather what wouldn't be, in and around fire toxicity. The fact that they were all correct is a terrible indictment on the Inquiry's many years (of expensive) work. The one thing I got wrong was I said that the report would only mention flame retardants in passing: in fact they did not mention them at all! I predicted they would not mention the failed furniture fire safety regulations either; which they did not. But they also made no reference to furniture at all.
To be clear, the combination of upholstered furniture and flame retardant chemicals was probably the greatest contribution to the toxic fire gases that this report says were responsible for all the deaths (other than those who jumped from the tower). Yet this is not even mentioned in the report.
In future blogs, I'll detail why I believe they have made this omission, along with how it was fixed by the two fire toxicity experts working to the Inquiry. For now, below are three points/questions the Inquiry needs to answer.
1. Toxins in the fire either killed people or left them totally unscathed!
The Government and Kensington & Chelsea Council have consistently asserted to Grenfell survivors and local residents that a) the fire was not toxic and b) they are not ill from the toxicity of the fire.
But the Grenfell Inquiry final report states, " . . . we can safely find that death was due in each case to the inhalation of [chemical] asphyxiant gases" . . . "including carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide".
These fire gases are well known to be highly toxic and can cause significant adverse health impact miles from the fire itself. Professor Alan Penn, Chief Government Scientific Adviser to the Inquiry and Professor Yvonne Doyle, Director for Health Protection, Public Health England, are on public record as claiming the Grenfell fire was not toxic. Doyle told hundreds of Grenfell survivors that they are not ill from the fire, but from underlying health conditions that were exacerbated by the stress of the fire.
Will they now admit they were wrong, apologise and finally tell Grenfell people the truth about their illnesses?
2. Why has the Government and the NHS consistently refused to provide proper health screening for Grenfell survivors and nearby residents?
The Inquiry's fire toxicity expert, Professor Anna Stec (along with other experts and Grenfell residents) has continually called for Grenfell survivors to receive health screening of their blood and saliva, "as a matter of urgency" (Stec), to test for the presence of fire effluents. Stec's analysis of soil samples taken close to the Tower, suggested, she said, "significant increased cancer risk from dioxins and furans, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons via dermal intake". Her report for the Fire Brigade Union (2023) - https://www.fbu.org.uk/campaigns/decon-fire-contaminants - revealed that firefighters are contracting cancers at rates high above the norm, almost certainly from fire toxicity. At least 12 firefighters who attended the Grenfell fire have been diagnosed with terminal cancers (and it's expected there will be more to come).
Given the Inquiry has concluded that the deaths were due to fire gas poisoning, will Grenfell survivors/residents not be tested for fire gas poisoning?
3. Why is there no mention of furniture or the failed furniture fire safety regulations in the Inquiry's report?
Upholstered house furniture is the most common (often fatal) source of toxic gases in domestic house fires. A 2017 paper by Professor Stec and others entitled: "Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653517319781 - demonstrates that upholstered furniture is a silent and deadly killer when on fire. Grenfell Tower was packed with burning sofas and mattresses, toxic fumes from which clearly remained mostly inside the building while cladding fumes mainly rose upwards and outwards. The Environmental Audit Committee's 2019 report - https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2602/toxic-chemicals-in-everyday-life-inquiry/publications/
- an investigation into the furniture regulations, confirmed that levels of flame retardants in UK furniture are the highest in the world and dangerous to health and life when ignited (and when simply released through wear). The EAC agreed that the current regulations are not effective and recommended the government change them to make them fire safe and free of toxic chemicals but the government has failed to act. This means the toxicity of the fire was greater than it needed to be.
Irony: in 2011 the government's Red Tape Challenge tried to cut the furniture regulations, at a time when it was universally believed they saved lives in fires. Since it was proved in 2014 that they are ineffective, the government has fought hard not to cut them! (They are very profitable.)
Judge Moore-Bick's solicitor assured Terry Edge that while these regulations had not been looked at in Phase 1 of the Inquiry, they would be examined in Phase 2. They weren't.
Is the reason for the Inquiry's failure to address the massive influence of the failed furniture regulations on Grenfell fire toxicity because of their huge profitability as they stand and the fear that there could be huge financial repercussions once the entire population learns they are being poisoned in their own homes and at huge risk of death in a fire for no good reason other than profit?
To be clear, the combination of upholstered furniture and flame retardant chemicals was probably the greatest contribution to the toxic fire gases that this report says were responsible for all the deaths (other than those who jumped from the tower). Yet this is not even mentioned in the report.
In future blogs, I'll detail why I believe they have made this omission, along with how it was fixed by the two fire toxicity experts working to the Inquiry. For now, below are three points/questions the Inquiry needs to answer.
1. Toxins in the fire either killed people or left them totally unscathed!
The Government and Kensington & Chelsea Council have consistently asserted to Grenfell survivors and local residents that a) the fire was not toxic and b) they are not ill from the toxicity of the fire.
But the Grenfell Inquiry final report states, " . . . we can safely find that death was due in each case to the inhalation of [chemical] asphyxiant gases" . . . "including carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide".
These fire gases are well known to be highly toxic and can cause significant adverse health impact miles from the fire itself. Professor Alan Penn, Chief Government Scientific Adviser to the Inquiry and Professor Yvonne Doyle, Director for Health Protection, Public Health England, are on public record as claiming the Grenfell fire was not toxic. Doyle told hundreds of Grenfell survivors that they are not ill from the fire, but from underlying health conditions that were exacerbated by the stress of the fire.
Will they now admit they were wrong, apologise and finally tell Grenfell people the truth about their illnesses?
2. Why has the Government and the NHS consistently refused to provide proper health screening for Grenfell survivors and nearby residents?
The Inquiry's fire toxicity expert, Professor Anna Stec (along with other experts and Grenfell residents) has continually called for Grenfell survivors to receive health screening of their blood and saliva, "as a matter of urgency" (Stec), to test for the presence of fire effluents. Stec's analysis of soil samples taken close to the Tower, suggested, she said, "significant increased cancer risk from dioxins and furans, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons via dermal intake". Her report for the Fire Brigade Union (2023) - https://www.fbu.org.uk/campaigns/decon-fire-contaminants - revealed that firefighters are contracting cancers at rates high above the norm, almost certainly from fire toxicity. At least 12 firefighters who attended the Grenfell fire have been diagnosed with terminal cancers (and it's expected there will be more to come).
Given the Inquiry has concluded that the deaths were due to fire gas poisoning, will Grenfell survivors/residents not be tested for fire gas poisoning?
3. Why is there no mention of furniture or the failed furniture fire safety regulations in the Inquiry's report?
Upholstered house furniture is the most common (often fatal) source of toxic gases in domestic house fires. A 2017 paper by Professor Stec and others entitled: "Flame retardants in UK furniture increase smoke toxicity more than they reduce fire growth rate" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653517319781 - demonstrates that upholstered furniture is a silent and deadly killer when on fire. Grenfell Tower was packed with burning sofas and mattresses, toxic fumes from which clearly remained mostly inside the building while cladding fumes mainly rose upwards and outwards. The Environmental Audit Committee's 2019 report - https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2602/toxic-chemicals-in-everyday-life-inquiry/publications/
- an investigation into the furniture regulations, confirmed that levels of flame retardants in UK furniture are the highest in the world and dangerous to health and life when ignited (and when simply released through wear). The EAC agreed that the current regulations are not effective and recommended the government change them to make them fire safe and free of toxic chemicals but the government has failed to act. This means the toxicity of the fire was greater than it needed to be.
Irony: in 2011 the government's Red Tape Challenge tried to cut the furniture regulations, at a time when it was universally believed they saved lives in fires. Since it was proved in 2014 that they are ineffective, the government has fought hard not to cut them! (They are very profitable.)
Judge Moore-Bick's solicitor assured Terry Edge that while these regulations had not been looked at in Phase 1 of the Inquiry, they would be examined in Phase 2. They weren't.
Is the reason for the Inquiry's failure to address the massive influence of the failed furniture regulations on Grenfell fire toxicity because of their huge profitability as they stand and the fear that there could be huge financial repercussions once the entire population learns they are being poisoned in their own homes and at huge risk of death in a fire for no good reason other than profit?
RSS Feed