What Surfing Taught Me About Crumbling Concrete

The news that so much disruption is being caused by the construction material RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) brings to mind a decision I had to make a couple of years ago as to whether to buy a more modern, so called ‘advanced technology’ epoxy surfboard, or to stick with my more traditional fibreglass ones.

Being typically sceptical I decided to look in depth as to how each type of board was constructed and what the relative pros and cons were. It turned out to be an easy choice but I seemed to be swimming against the tide and could well have been accused by some of being too sceptical.

The epoxy boards are sold as being much lighter, stronger and ‘progressive’. It is true that they have particular advantages for some and allow for more radical surfing – aerial manoeuvres in particular – for those skilful enough, but the major drawback for me was that if you damage your board with just a small ding and you don’t get out of the water immediately, the heavily aerated (98% air) lightweight eps foam can absorb huge amounts of water capable of spreading rapidly through the board and potentially making it economically unviable to repair. As an experienced surfer I know how often surfers can emerge from the sea only then to realise that their board (fibreglass or epoxy) has been cracked during their surf. I also have heard enough reports to know that the epoxy boards are nowhere near as strong or dense as the manufacturers claim and that the manufacturers and retailers don’t inform their customers adequately about the drawbacks of these expensive boards – only the advantages. I speak to surfers about their new purchases and it is clear many of them are unaware.

A similar material science lies behind the retrofitting of insulation (especially cavity wall insulation and external wall insulation) where devastating disruption to people’s lives and thousands of pounds may have been wasted on materials that eventually absorb excessive moisture, rendering them ineffective, and then possibly thousands more being spent to repair the resulting damage. The Grenfell disaster has similar echoes of a complete failure to recognise a very basic link between material science, structural engineering and health and safety. As soon as I looked Into RAAC it became clear that it should never have been used as a load bearing construction material in buildings that people occupy for any reason whatsoever.

And so it was confirmed this week in an interview with Dr. John Roberts, a past President of the Institute of Structural Engineers, on BBC Radio 4’s World at One.

What the mainstream media seem to be focusing on is a lack of funding as a root cause of the whole problem. This allows for a lot of political mudslinging that has diverted attention from the more salient issues that are brought up in the interview:

RAAC was not properly assessed by those who should have been responsible as a potentially immediate problem rather than a medium to long term one;
the material never resembled ordinary concrete in the slightest;
RAAC was not truly designed by structural engineers but bought out of a catalogue by manufacturers;
the ‘concrete’ wasn’t marketed as a short-life material, should never have been used for the purpose it ended up being used for and was inherently mis-sold.

Known as ‘aerobar’, ‘aircrete’ and RAAC, the cheap lightweight alternative to traditional concrete mixes was used in thousands of U.K. public buildings from the 1950s to 1990s. By the 1980s it had started to fail and buildings had to be demolished.

Through the decades that RAAC has been allowed to be installed, where is there any accountability? The manufacturers have long since gone bust or disappeared and those responsible for signing off the projects seem to be missing. Who can explain why there are no proper records of exactly which public (and private) buildings are involved and thus the true extent of the problem – or should we say scandal?

Schoolchildren and the public at large shouldn’t have to wait until all the affected buildings are demolished and reconstructed, or until the cost of living goes up yet again to pay for repeated mistakes, to realise that those responsible for all these gross failures in due diligence and poor evidence-based risk assessments really haven’t a clue. As with lockdowns and coercive experimental vaccinations, the ignorance and lack of accountability by so-called experts is so extensive and staggering that being a ‘daily sceptic’ should immediately be everybody’s priority for their health and safety in the 21st century.

Dr. Mark Shaw is a retired dentist.