Ben Houchen - Guardian

American_Mary said:
The only mention of carbonation of the concrete is in the summary, as someone who has worked on several projects were concrete and steel carbonisation is an issue that we have to deal with, how would you establish that carbonation has taken place without taking a test ?

There is no mention of carbonation tests in the report therefore it can’t be proven to be true, if there’s no test you cannot surmise that carbonation is present…I used to work for Atkins in Leeds back in the day and was part of a team doing conditions surveys in old buildings, a test would always be required, if a doctor said you’ve broken your leg would you take his word or ask for an x-ray.

Yes I’m doubling down on the fact that you can’t say with certainty that carbonation is present without doing phenolphthalein or other tests, a binocular and drone survey would not give you the necessary level of detail to give anything beyond a rough approximation of shelf life and internal deterioration.
Click to expand...
No idea, as I have already explained; I am not a structural engineer, however, Atkins are and you haven't provided me with any reason to doubt the validity of their findings other than to backtrack on your claims regarding the content of their report and point out they cannot possibly conclude carbonation has occurred from a visual inspection. Obviously they feel confident in their own expertise that they can assess that from the investigation they carried out.
 
MFP said:
No idea, as I have already explained; I am not a structural engineer, however, Atkins are and you haven't provided me with any reason to doubt the validity of their findings other than to backtrack on your claims regarding the content of their report and point out they cannot possibly conclude carbonation has occurred from a visual inspection. Obviously they feel confident in their own expertise that they can assess that from the investigation they carried out.
Click to expand...
Yeah there’s no precedent of claims being made in any report for political ends…also it would be a civil engineer doing the report on concrete and a structural engineer looking at steelwork.

So Houchen lied that the tower was on the site of the GEC development, he lied to Nadine Dorries saying the tower was in imminent danger of collapse, he lied about the personnel involved in granting the tower listed status and claimed it was a mistake by a junior employee and you’re arguing a point of fact that a process cannot be proven without testing as some sort of vindication of Houchen’s actions…you’ve read the report why do you think Houchen ignored the bit with the request for further surveys and testing as being a caveat for their conclusion given the unusual nature of access for their survey ?
 
Right, so we're now at the point where you're questioning the integrity and honesty of Atkins who literally have no reason whatsoever to deceive and mislead. Can't say this is surprising, we had the same insinuations in the extensive thread a few weeks back about the tower from people upset that it didn't say what they wanted it to.

And I'm not aware of everything Houchen has and hasn't said. You'll have to provide me with sources of statements he's made, but then this wasn't the point I raised, it was your own lies about the content of Atkins' assessment.
 
I’ve not lied about anything, I’ve merely pointed out that Houchen’s interpretation of the report is not what’s in the report, you’ve not read the report nor does it appear you have the technical understanding to disseminate the information therein just accuse me of lying yet make no comment nor any effort to actually look at the report beyond a carefully picked few bits from Houchen.

Educate yourself on his statements and then get back to me, sources are Northern Echo, Evening Gazette, Historic England, the SSI and Teesworks site plans, 30 years experience in Engineering, as well as various online resources regarding carbonisation procedures and concrete contamination.

Atkins conclusion comes with caveats due to the nature of the survey that their conclusions are based on supposition and without further enquiry and testing are a best guess…Atkins are saying maybe Houchen is interpreting as definitely if you can’t grasp that concept and understand it or your interpretation is that by questioning, not the contents of the report itself but the cherry picked parts published by Houchen and the TVCA to support their argument as a falsification on my part and not reflective of the full content of the report then I really can’t see what else I can do or say to someone who hasn’t read the report, admits they wouldn’t understand the report, has no experience of the subject matter and confesses to have not made themselves aware of the statements Houchen has made on the subject.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk

Dorman Long tower: Ben Houchen and Historic England clash over listing

A ROW is continuing to rumble over the demolition of the Dorman Long tower after a heritage organisation accused the Tees Valley Mayor of making an…
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk www.thenorthernecho.co.uk
 
I have read the report and I did so when I posted it on this very board about two weeks back as you can see here, so thank you for telling me what I haven't read, even though you clearly haven't a clue, hence your lies and constant conflation of carbonisation and carbonation.

You're now telling me to educate on Houchen's remark and despite asking you to source these statements and still haven't, so why would I care what he has to say about anything, when it's your lies that I have challenged?

And whilst you're at at, point out all these caveats in the reports you claim as the only recommendation I recall Atkins making was for a HAZID inspection to assess the risk of falling debris. I assume you have actually read the report.
 
MFP said:
I have read the report and I did so when I posted it on this very board about two weeks back as you can see here, so thank you for telling me what I haven't read, even though you clearly haven't a clue, hence your lies and constant conflation of carbonisation and carbonation.

You're now telling me to educate on Houchen's remark and despite asking you to source these statements and still haven't, so why would I care what he has to say about anything, when it's your lies that I have challenged?

And whilst you're at at, point out all these caveats in the reports you claim as the only recommendation I recall Atkins making was for a HAZID inspection to assess the risk of falling debris. I assume you have actually read the report.
Click to expand...
They’re the same thing so no conflation just a diversification of vocabulary, I do believe that’s allowed.

I included a link which included statements and rebuffs. I haven’t lied I have said that outside of the summary there is no mention of carbonation in the report and no way of proving without testing that that assumption is correct.

Oh dear, the caveat throughout is that the information is based on a visual inspection from a distance, if you have knowledge of these reports it’s a clear disclaimer to say we’ve looked at it but not been able to do a full and proper conditions survey, as is one of the early paragraphs which says the information here in has been complied based on visual information.

I’ll have a reread and if there are mentions elsewhere I’ll withdraw that comment however I maintain that without testing it as an assumption, more than likely correct, but not proven.

EDIT: in the 66 page document the word carbonation appears 8 times, 3 times in the Executive Summary, 3 times in a cut paste format in the Outline Options and Recommendations, twice in Life Span including once as anti-Carbonation, of the mentions 5 of them are to explain what Carbonation is, two are related to overall state of the building and one refers to treatment required to remedy the situation. No specific areas, no references on models or drawings just general comments.
 
Last edited:
So what are you saying now, that these further investigations and surveys recommended by Atkins and ignored by Houchen don't actually exist in the report and should simply be assumed?

Can I ask; is this a political issue for you? Do you think the decision made to tear Dorman Tower was wrong and oppose it because it was made by Houchen who you clearly have nothing but contempt for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top