Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Apple's iOS 7 to be "black, white and flat all over"
Home › News › Industry News
Kodak maintained an underground nuclear reactor for over 30 years
It’s no secret that Eastman Kodak Co. has fallen on hard times in recent memory, but despite all of that, the ailing photography company has been able to keep one secret closely-guarded for more than 30 years. Kodak maintained a small nuclear reactor filled with 3.5-pounds of weapons-grade enriched uranium in an underground basement in Rochester, New York and nobody was the wiser.
Known as a Californium Neutron Flex multiplier, Kodak acquired the reactor in 1974 which was loaded with 3.5-pounds of uranium plates around a Californium-252 core. Uranium is the material used to create nuclear weapons.
It was kept in an underground bunker with 2-foot thick walls and was under tight security. The device was one of only two ever created and the only one used for private industry.
Kodak used the device to conduct decades of research, check materials for impurities and perform neutron radiography testing. The company maintains that the device was perfectly safe and since it wasn’t a power plant, there was no risk of explosion and there was never a radiation leak.
Technically speaking, the device wasn’t a “secret” as it was mentioned in some research papers throughout the years, although its location was never disclosed. It appears that the company never made local police and fire departments aware of its existence. Furthermore, Kodak spokesperson Christopher Veronda was unable to locate any public announcement of the facility.
The company decommissioned the reactor six years ago and with the help of federal regulators, the uranium plates where packaged into protective containers and hauled away in November 2007.
Related Products from Product Finder
Kodak EasyShare M580
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Kodak EasyShare M580. There are 23 reviews available so far.
Kodak EasyShare M550
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Kodak EasyShare M550. There are 6 reviews available so far.
Kodak Hero 7.1 All-in-One Printer
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Kodak Hero 7.1 All-in-One Printer. There are 11 reviews available so far.
Kodak Playfull Ze1
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Kodak Playfull Ze1. There are 16 reviews available so far.
User Comments: 22
Got something to say? Post a comment-
1 person liked this |PC nerd said:
Badass
-
KG363 said:
^ Definitely
-
Take that, you digital photography industry.
-
Thats legit, I hope some cool tech breakthrough came from it.
And its nice to know kodak was intelligent enough to keep that a secret.
-
3 people like this |
You would think that Kodak could provide a better picture. :0P
-
Cota said:
Sooo.... garage sale?
-
Night Hacker said:
Small reactors are far safer than the larger ones we use to power our cities. Nuclear subs use small ones that are very safe. I would think it very unsafe to announce to the world that you have a nuclear reactor. Sounds like they were very safe about it.
By the way, did you know it was weapon's grade uranium?! Also, it was weapon's grade uranium. Did I mention it was weapon's grade?? TERRORISTS!!!!
-
Ranger1st said:
Now, Officially my favourite company ever..
-
we will eventually find that there was a megatron inside the hoover dam.... and intel, apple etc were taking ideas and tech from it......
-
1 person liked this |
How are they going bankrupt...?
What does 3.5 pounds of enriched uranium go for on the open market..? (*snicker*)
-
at the guest above:
the picture was taken by a kodak top-of-the-line 0.05mp camera (1980)
I still own a functional kodak c310 camera and I'm sad that kodak has fallen on hard times.
I also wonder what practical applications did the kodak radiography studies yield.
(airport x-ray counter? satellite-based surveillance system?)
-
"check out our small nuclear reactor filled with 3.5-pounds of weapons-grade enriched uranium in an underground basement!"
o.O
-
Night Hacker said:at the guest above:
I still own a functional kodak c310 camera and I'm sad that kodak has fallen on hard times.
Kodak C713 here, awesome camera for the cost. Back in the 80s I owned a Kodak instant camera and it was the best, I was so angry when Polaroid won that lawsuit, Polaroids sucked, the Kodak instant pics were like glossy developed pictures. I have always liked that company and am saddened at their hard times
-
You would think that Kodak could provide a better picture. :0P
Hey, someone had to dress in drag and sneak that picture using a Kodak Instamatic hidden on one side of a tissue-stuffed bra. They couldn't even use a flash attachment. Then they had to compensate for extreme radiation fogging, working with film by hand in a barely lit darkroom. Don't disparage the picture. I'm amazed it got out at all.
-
Taycat said:
I'm going to assume they took the picture, BEFORE, they started the machine, lol.
-
Pity they didn't have a bit more U235, they could have built one hell of a flashgun!
-
The size of the reactor has nothing to do with whether or not it is safe.
The reactors on subs are safer because they are better designed and better maintained.
-
@guest above
"The size of the reactor has nothing to do with whether or not it is safe.
The reactors on subs are safer because they are better designed and better maintained"
first, you said two contradictive statements above.. you said the size has nothing to do with safe or not, but the next sentence you called reactors on sub are safer..
second, define what you called 'better designed' and 'better maintained'
my advice, learn more before you post your smart comment
-
Doctor John said:
@guest above"The size of the reactor has nothing to do with whether or not it is safe.
The reactors on subs are safer because they are better designed and better maintained"
first, you said two contradictive statements above.. you said the size has nothing to do with safe or not, but the next sentence you called reactors on sub are safer..
second, define what you called 'better designed' and 'better maintained'
my advice, learn more before you post your smart comment
Huh? how is it a contradiction to say size has nothing to do with it, but being on a sub does? No-one said sub reactors are safer because they are smaller!?
And why define what one calls "better designed" or "better maintained"? It's plain English.
My advice, take a chill-pill.
-
It would be in the best interest of everyone involved to maintain a reactor the best they possibly could.
-
mtyler11 said:
And THIS is why I always wanted to work for an R&D arm of a corp. titan.
-
As far as I know regarding nuclear reactors, they use Uranium cores in such impurities as to be able to have their rate of decay controlled by Cadmium control rods being lowered in between the Uranium cores. This is not weaponizable Uranium, for such Uranium would cause just that, a chain reaction, rather than just the slow decay. This is why nuclear power plants "meltdown", as the cooling systems fail and the Uranium reaches such high temperatures that it literally melts down into the ground beneath it, rather than exploding. Because this was a small reactor, I highly, highly doubt that it contained weaponizable Uranium.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.