WTF? Kodak Had a Secret Nuclear Reactor Loaded With Enriched Uranium Hidden In a Basement

[GliderGuider]

http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement

Kodak may be going under, but apparently they could have started their own nuclear war if they wanted, just six years ago. Down in a basement in Rochester, NY, they had a nuclear reactor loaded with 3.5 pounds of enriched uranium—the same kind they use in atomic warheads.

But why did Kodak have a hidden nuclear reactor loaded with weapons-grade uranium? And how did they get permission to own it, let alone install it in a basement in the middle of a densely populated city? Nobody really knows

Kodak officials now admit that they never made any public announcement about it. In fact, nobody in the city—officials, police or firemen—or in the state of New York or anywhere else knew about it until it was recently leaked by an ex-employee. Its existence and whereabouts were purposely kept vague and only a few engineers and Federal employees really knew about the project.

The reactor was installed in a closely guarded, two-foot-thick concrete walled underground bunker in the company's headquarters, where it was fed tests using a pneumatic system. According to the company, no employees were ever in contact with the reactor. Apparently, it was operated by atomic fairies and unicorns.

[Kalidurga]

1. LOL

Second amendment rights. This was something I used to joke about with gun nuts that well according to your logic people should be able to have their own nukes.

[Recursion]

3. Nuclear *weapons* (which this wasn't) are governed by the NPT

But, for that matter, you can in fact legally own a nuclear warhead today; you just have to buy all of Boeing to do it.

[bananas]

9. The NPT governs enriched uranium and a whole lot more. nt

[Ian David]

2. It was to power their Explosive Space Modulator. Polaroid obstructs their view of Venus. n/t

[Recursion]

5. It was probably for research

Plenty of universities have these too

[Ian David]

6. The article says it was to inspect materials for faults. n/t

[Recursion]

4. How could you "start a nuclear war" with a nuclear reactor? (nt)

[Nihil]

13. Easy ...

... just add sufficient critical mass of hyperbole to overcome the natural damping
mechanism of facts and off you go!



(And let's face it, there's no shortage of unstable hyperbole around these parts ...)

[GliderGuider]

14. :-) Nicely done. nt

[jimlup]

7. As a physicist I would say that this was a "source"

And not a reactor - if it were a reactor it would have been submerged in water and have control rods. It appears to me that the author of this piece is going for sensationalism and doesn't have a great deal of nuclear physics knowledge. I doubt very seriously that the Californium 252 was enclosed in "weapons grade uranium". Most full scale reactors in the United States don't even have "weapons grade uranium". Also it should be noted that while it sounds like a great deal 3.5 pounds of "weapons grade uranium" is not close to enough to make a real bomb. More likely it was "depleted uranium" used for shielding. My guess is that the author misunderstood the references to the materials.

This was an alpha source. I understand why Kodak wanted an alpha source. They made film for radiation detectors like the film in the film badge I wore for many years when I worked at a national laboratory.

[mike_c]

8. ding ding ding...

...we have a winner. This story does not make any sense otherwise.

[caraher]

10. Yup - the Gizmodo piece is all kinds of awful

Read instead their own source, rather than the bizarrro fantasy "reactor" version Gizmodo spun from it...

[kristopher]

16. That also says weapons grade uranium.

"...But it wanted a more potent in-house system, so in 1974 it acquired a californium neutron flux multiplier, known as a CFX. Small plates of highly enriched uranium multiplied the neutron flow from a tiny californium core.

Kodak used it to check chemicals and other materials for impurities, Filo said. It also was used for tests related to neutron radiography, an imaging technique.

...

“All but a few stocks of civilian highly enriched uranium have been eliminated in the United States,” said Matthew Bunn, an associate professor at Harvard University and a former White House adviser on nuclear-materials security.

The worry is that as little as 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium and some rudimentary knowledge is sufficient to make a crude but effective nuclear explosive, Pomper said. Terrorists might try to acquire the needed amount by stealing smaller qualities, like Kodak’s 3½ pounds.

“We spend lots of money around the world getting equivalent amounts out,” he said..."

Your link included their identifier for those who have used their free access and it placing the article behind a paywall because it reads every click as part of your access. This URL should allow everyone to be counted as a new viewer:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120511/NEWS01/305120021/Kodak-Park-nuclear-reactor

[skepticscott]

11. Exactly

Even if Kodak were trying to run their own reactor, why the heck would they bother getting weapons grade uranium (at maybe 90% enrichment) when LEU would work just fine? The whole thing just sounds silly and overblown.

[FogerRox]

15. Not a physicist, but with good scientific aptitude.....

I totally agree, weapons grade is the huge giveaway......

See the pic of my friends nuclear reactor in this thread. Yes, its an actual Nuclear reactor, scary right? No, its an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion reactor and is only capable of a few fusion events per run. Otherwise known as a "fusor".

[felix_numinous]

17. Kodak makes xray film and made film badges

I used for years. Makes sense they have to test their film with this alpha radiation source.

[FogerRox]

12. My friend Tom Ligon likes to show off his nuclear reactor

Circa 1998



Oh sorry, thats an IEC nuclear fusion reactor, my bad.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. 3.5 pounds is enough to make a reactor ??

I think someone can't tell a radiation source from a nuclear reactor. That's like confusing a candle with a jet engine just because both burn hydrocarbons.