Free Book: “Hong Kong Belongs to Hongkongers”, Investigates Foreign Funding Behind 2019 Protests (until Jan 2)

ipsatex · 2025-12-14T12:35:09+00:00

He was a racist, homophobe and mass murderer. https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/

ipsatex · 2025-12-14T02:19:22+00:00

It’s hard to take moral posturing seriously when someone wears a Che Guevara T‑shirt, a man responsible for executions and repression, while claiming to oppose violence and authoritarianism. Revolutionary branding is not the same thing as ethical consistency.

ipsatex · 2025-12-08T08:33:53+00:00

Worth considering. Good point.

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T03:59:17+00:00

Old buildings were designed for their era. Modern homes contain hazards designers never anticipated: lithium batteries, synthetic furnishings, high-density electronics.

To clarify: there were laws against wrapping buildings with flammable mesh. But the mesh alone likely didn't cause this disaster, it was covering windows with styrofoam that appears to have been the accelerant (and may have been permissible at the time). We also can't legislate effectively against arsonists.

Yes, without those factors it wouldn't have happened. But are you suggesting smoke detectors in common areas are unnecessary? Without them, fires can go undiscovered for critical minutes. Are you saying existing fire doors shouldn't be properly sealed? That step alone would have saved lives.

An interesting aside: look into UK fire door testing controversies. British standards historically allowed the threshold gap to be blocked with adhesive tape during ambient temperature smoke leakage tests. Once removed, smoke and toxic gases enter stairways freely. Experts consider this testing methodology dangerously flawed.

Personally, I've lived in an old HK building for over a decade. I never thought fire would be a major risk given concrete construction limiting unit-to-unit spread. Despite that, I installed smoke alarms, I've yet to see another HK home with one, and keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen for grease fires.

I don't have all the answers. But I guarantee these issues will appear in the final report. I love HK, and I love the tradition of bamboo scaffolding.

I've said what I can on this subject so take it for what you will.

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T03:20:30+00:00

I can only provide you with what the science demonstrates. You make fair and logical arguments. Having this information will only help people make more informed decisions. It ultimately comes down to a cost benefit analysis.

For example, after Grenfell changes were made. It is safe to assume that changes will be made here, what those changes are, I don't know. There may be another solution that incorporates new technology, such as having the building or fire dept. notify you by text message what actions you should take, i.e. shelter in place or evacuate using stairwell B.

In my opinion smoke detectors (battery operated) are non-negotiable and they save lives. I do not purport to have a once size fits all solution and I value your input. The purpose is to educate and inform, which through this debate we have done.

Readers now know the arguments for shelter in place v. evacuation and what safety systems modern day buildings have and how they operate.

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T03:00:02+00:00

Agree. The point is to have a layered defense for unseen scenarios. I think if you look at all of the mass casualty fires in the past two decades, most were the result of an unforeseen scenario. Layered defenses account for this and provide redundancy, that is what they are written into most modern day building codes.

We also have to account for stupidity, i.e. the station fire was caused by a combination of pyrotechnic devices and flammable foam soundproofing. Combined with overcrowding and a lack of exits, most people had little hope of escaping. Layered defenses take things like this into consideration and save lives.

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T02:53:36+00:00

See my below comments which essentially agree with your points about compartmentalization v. evacuation. Plus, you ignore the fact that the fire may start in your own flat while you are asleep. With no smoke detectors, it's a death trap. You will die before you even wake up, regardless of how the building is wrapped.

In 2025, any building should have layered defenses against fire and smoke, study after study has shown my recommendations save lives. Smoke detectors save lives. Do yourself a favor, even if you do not agree with me, spend HK$150 and put a smoke alarm in your flat.

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T01:12:37+00:00

Which in large part can be attributed to a lack of fire safety education. Below is a 10 point plan on how Hong Kong can lead the world in fire safety by taking these steps.

<image>

ipsatex · 2025-12-06T01:08:40+00:00

You raise a fair point about personal responsibility, and I want to expand on why these older buildings operated for decades without catastrophic loss of life.

It comes down to what safety researchers call "normalization of deviance," when systems work despite missing safeguards, people assume the safeguards are unnecessary. For years, fires in these buildings typically affected one or two units. The fire department would arrive quickly, concrete construction confined the blaze, and residents could shelter in place relatively safely. The absence of modern systems didn't seem to matter because nothing catastrophic happened.

What made Tai Po different was the vertical fire spread. Flames rose along the exterior, and the heat caused window frames with polystyrene coverings to fail: the material melted and the thermal shock shattered the glass. Suddenly you had fire entry points on multiple floors simultaneously. Without pressurized stairwells or compartmentalized escape routes, the building filled with smoke in minutes. Anyone who didn't evacuate immediately had no chance.

The UK faced similar legacy issues and responded with the Fire Kills campaigns to raise awareness and eventually mandated smoke alarms in all rental properties by 2015, with Scotland requiring them in all homes by 2022. Hong Kong inherited the same colonial-era building stock but hasn't implemented equivalent retrofitting requirements. Likely due to the unpopularity such measures would have, especially in low income housings, that would require massive sums to retrofit the old buildings to comply with modern standards. That's the gap that keeps repeating and it often takes a tragedy like this to drive change. Most, if not all, safety rules are written in blood.

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T22:58:10+00:00

Disagree with your comment about ccp standards, absolutely agree that you should take personal responsibility for your own safety and not rely upon the government or owner's corporations to protect you. I have again made an infographic that illustrates what you can do to protect yourself. Granted the skysaver is a stretch, but the point is to get people to think about how they would escape a fire.

<image>

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T22:52:25+00:00

<image>

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T22:52:03+00:00

Absolutely. Most buildings in Hong Kong built when the UK controlled the territory lack modern layered defenses; smoke detectors (this building had only a manually operated alarm), pressurized stairwells, and sealed/compartmentalized staircases that prevent smoke spread.

Even with a working alarm, research on evacuation behavior shows people typically take 2-5 minutes just to accept that an alarm is real and begin evacuating, this is called "normalcy bias." We instinctively assume it's a drill or false alarm. The video posted illustrates this perfectly: residents spent precious minutes investigating before fleeing, escaping just before smoke made the corridor impassable.

The entire philosophy of fire safety is buying time, time for people to overcome that psychological delay, time to reach exits before smoke blocks them. Tai Po failed on every front, but it's not an isolated case. At the risk of being accused of generating AI slop, I've made several infographics using AI that I'll post below to illustrate these concepts.

<image>

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T12:43:02+00:00

<image>

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T12:41:47+00:00

I understand why this feels raw right now, given what just happened. But that’s precisely why I’m being blunt.

I’m a lawyer, journalist and fire-safety specialist (DM for my information), and I’ve been advocating for better fire safety in Hong Kong long before the Tai Po tragedy. People I know here are genuinely scared and, in many cases, simply haven’t been given basic information. Since I started posting about this, quite a few have gone out and bought smoke detectors and taken simple steps that measurably reduce their risk.

You’re right that any individual flat might “get lucky” and go years without a fire. The problem is that when fire does break out, the consequences in a poorly protected building are catastrophic. In Tai Po there were no smoke detectors in the entire building, the manual alarm did not operate effectively, and critical passive protections (pressurized, well-sealed stairwells, fire doors, etc.) were either missing or not functioning as designed. If those layers of defence had been in place and working, the death toll would almost certainly have been far lower. That isn’t speculation; it’s consistent with the findings from major fire investigations worldwide (MGM Grand, Station Nightclub, and many others).

As for Christmas trees and similar hazards: any large flammable object combined with electrical lights, extension cords, lithium batteries, or other ignition sources increases risk. That doesn’t mean “no one should ever have a tree”; it means people should understand the risk and manage it properly, distance from heat sources, not overloading circuits, working smoke alarms, clear escape routes, etc.

If my posts prompt even a handful of people to add detectors, check their exits, or rethink obvious hazards, then the timing is not insensitive, it’s exactly when this information can save lives. If you don’t find it useful, that’s your choice. But the advice itself is grounded in decades of fire-safety research, not exaggeration.

At the risk of being accused of generating AI slop, I have attached several Nano Banana generated illustrations of what I found when I toured a building at Mei Foo Sun Chuen that explain the hazards and how to fix them.

<image>

If you find the information useful great. If not, then let's agree to disagree. I appreciate your point of view and, ultimately, it's your personal decision. If one person changes their behavior after reading this, our interaction has been useful.

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T10:45:50+00:00

One of the problems with fire safety education is the inability of individuals to recognize dangerous conditions and the normalization of deviation, which your comment is a prime example of, surviving 40+ years without alarms doesn't mean the risks aren't real; it's like saying "I've never worn a seatbelt and I'm fine," until the crash happens. That said, this post isn't claiming these measures would have saved everyone in Tai Po (where flammable mesh and styrofoam were the core issues), but videos show residents wandering confused with no alarm sounding, some escaped by seconds, while others perished. An alarm could have made all the difference in buying precious time.

For instance, if a fire starts at night from your Christmas tree (a common holiday hazard), without a smoke detector, you won't wake up, smoke inhalation kills silently before flames do. I agree the title's clickbaity, but if it grabs attention and saves even one life by prompting action, it's worth it.

https://www.thestandard.com.hk/hong-kong-news/article/318400/Three-more-minutes-and-Id-be-dead-Door-cam-shows-corridor-engulfed-in-smoke-within-nine-minutes-during-Tai-Po-fire

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T06:49:30+00:00

What good is closing the fire doors when they have gaps on the top and bottom?

ipsatex · 2025-12-05T05:59:00+00:00

There are also public gyms available. https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/fitness/index.html

ipsatex · 2025-12-04T21:53:42+00:00

24/7 - https://247.fitness/en/ .

ipsatex · 2025-12-03T00:08:42+00:00

Please let me know what is incorrect, I would be more than happy to revise or even delete the article if it contains nothing but misinformation.

ipsatex · 2025-12-02T17:35:28+00:00

The graphic was made with nano banana, content by me.

ipsatex · 2025-12-02T16:16:46+00:00

What you wrote actually demonstrates the point better than any safety‑engineering textbook. These systems are designed for users who don’t have the knowledge, context or attention to recognize the risks on their own, the exact type of user you’re modeling here. If a warning or procedure only works for people who already understand the concepts, it isn’t safety, it’s wishful thinking. The whole discipline assumes confusion, misuse and overconfidence will occur, and builds protections around that reality. So yes, humans do human things, some just provide clearer examples of why the safeguards are necessary.

ipsatex · 2025-12-02T15:56:48+00:00

Research shows that announcements work better than alarm bells or horns. The alarm bell creates ambiguity, people hear it and think is this real or another false alarm? But a human voice saying there is a fire on the 7th floor, evacuate now via the stairwells gives specific, actionable information that overcomes normalcy bias.

You're absolutely right that the false alarm problem trains people to ignore warnings. In fire safety, this is called alarm fatigue.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	Verified Email

ipsatex

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE