I think Dave is overstating the minimal risks. I for one would ignore his objections. I doubt that he has tried to ignite PVC sheeting. It certainly isn’t easy to get it burning.
Andrew.
Did you read the post Andrew, in particular the need to consider consequences? Can you justify why you choose to ignore an assessment explaining why PVC is a poor choice for a splashback? Is there a rationale, or is it just a gut reaction against ‘elf-and-safety’?
Always good to put numbers on things rather than guess. Here’s a list of common materials that might be used to make a splashback with their ignition temperatures:
Polypropylene 201°C
Polyethylene 226°C
Polystyrene 226°C
Paper 233°C
PVC 422°C
Pine 427°C
Magnesium 473°C
Polycarbonate 478°C
Oak 482°C
Aluminium 650°C
Steel 1400°C
In this table PVC is lowest in the group requiring more than 400°C to ignite, which is encouraging, but unlike Pine, Polycarbonate, and Oak, the fumes of burning PVC are highly toxic. The consequences are serious – as any fireman will tell you, fumes kill far more people than fire. In deciding he’s happy to fit PVC, I doubt Andrew ignited any and breathed in the smoke!
How about metals? Magnesium might be considered low-risk too, but again consider the consequences if it does catch fire. Aluminium is my entry point – although it can catch fire, very unlikely, unless of course one is turning Magnesium or Titanium.
Getting fire protection wrong isn’t unusual in construction. Sheets that are pretty, easy to fit and cheap to buy are so, so tempting. The builder of Grenfell Towers saved £300,000 by using cheap cladding and the cost of the resulting fire was over £1.2bn. Many similar examples around the world, where some brave soul decided to take the risk and got caught out.
Hope I’ve explained why I wouldn’t use PVC in a workshop. Why use it when steel eliminates the fire risk entirely?
Dave