Slashdot Mirror


Kodak Basement Lab Housed Small Nuclear Reactor

McGruber writes "The Rochester (NY) Democrat-Chronicle has the interesting story of the Eastman Kodak Co.'s Californium Neutron Flux Multiplier, which was housed in Building 82 of Kodak Park in Rochester, NY. The multiplier contained 3½ pounds of highly enriched (weapons-grade) uranium. Kodak used it to check chemicals and other materials for impurities, as well as for tests related to neutron radiography, an imaging technique. From the article: 'When Kodak decided six years ago to close down the device, still more scrutiny followed. Federal regulators made them submit detailed plans for removing the substance. When the highly enriched uranium was packaged into protective containers and spirited away in November 2007, armed guards were surely on hand. All of this — construction of a bunker with two-foot-thick concrete walls, decades of research and esoteric quality control work with a neutron beam, the safeguarding and ultimate removal of one of the more feared substances on earth — was done pretty much without anyone in the Rochester community having a clue.'"

48 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. sigh... by Bugler412 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Cue the irrational fears and misunderstanding of these materials and processes while the coal fired power plant burns down the street" music

    1. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sadly, he died the next day.
      But he died with a clean PC.

    2. Re:sigh... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      But you've deprived the NIMBYs from whining and shrieking. Had they known about the presence of this thing right in their back yard it would have provided meaning and purpose for their otherwise useless lives. But now, some unfeeling corporate giant has deprived them of this by removing that threat.

      These faceless corporations, with no motivation other than profit (well, OK, its Kodak) have taken something that we hold precious away from us. Our right to bitch.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:sigh... by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They also took away the right for the emergency services workers to be trained and know what they were dealing with in the event of a fire or other situation potentially involving weapons grade radioisotopes.

      Um, not really. I knew it was there. Just about anyone who went to college in the area knew it was there - if you were a hard science major. What they didn't do was advertise it. They got regulators to approve it & they put it in - no publicity & no big shouting matches over it.

    4. Re:sigh... by peragrin · · Score: 2

      shh don't tell them the truth. I still can get away with saying I saw the WTC falling from Rochester.

      (yes I have had that conversation several times)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:sigh... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They also took away the right for the emergency services workers to be trained and know what they were dealing with in the event of a fire or other situation potentially involving weapons grade radioisotopes.

      Think so?

      It's possible that emergency services knew what was on site and may even have procedures in place to deal with it. Its also possible that they didn't feel the need to involve every Joe Sixpack in the neighborhood in the details of where a couple of pounds of weapons grade fissile material was located.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:sigh... by macwhiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      And you have to realize that Kodak Park, back then, was big enough to have its own fire department. Not a fire engine. Not a fire house. A fire department with multiple stations throughout the Park, all trained to handle utterly massive hazmat incidents and fires. Kodak Park was the biggest chemical-processing facility this side of the Mississippi... which, of course, includes all of New Jersey. When local fire departments needed hazmat training, they went to Kodak. I worked there; trust me, three kilograms of uranium was probably one of the smallest disaster risks inherent in the operation. Miles of pipelines carrying acids and solvents, massive steam works from a power plant big enough to run a small city... Every day I drove past this gleaming stainless steel tank, think a milk tanker stood on end, labelled "LIQUID NITROGEN—NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LIFE". That was fun on windy days when it would sway, and images from Terminator 2 unavoidably came to mind.

      Kodak has its problems and warts, but anyone accusing Kodak of disdain for Rochester is exhibiting an utter ignorance of the histories of Rochester, Kodak, and George Eastman. I'd frankly be hard-pressed to come up with an example of a company that's done more for their community. (Recent run-into-the-ground years excepted...)

    7. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      [rolls eyes]
      A block of enriched uranium isn't much different from a block of regular uranium (it's *slightly* more radioactive), which is to say you could handle it with gloves, hide it under your bed, dress it up like Natalie Portman and have it sitting at your breakfast table while eating your oatmeal, and you would not be in serious health danger. We're not talking plutonium or cobalt-60, here. As long as you didn't powder it (it's pyrophoric) or try to eat it, it is not particularly reactive or dangerous, especially if in a properly shielded container. Sitting in the lab there was no more risk than, say, your average hospital that has a radiation therapy facility. In fact, probably less because of the nature of the isotopes involved (the isotopes in radiation treatment are MUCH more radioactive).

    8. Re:sigh... by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Those same people who don't complain at all about the propane facilities I drive by regularly.

      I think a major part of it is fear of the unknown. When a propane facility lights off, everyone knows exactly where the danger is (the great big fireballs and those metal tanks dropping from the sky). When a radiation accident happens, you can't see the danger and by the time you find out you've been exposed its too late. The danger is the same (probably higher for non-radioactive accidents...) but the fear factor is much higher because radiation is the ghost in the night...

    9. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, Kodak NEVER did any wrong right ? How about Rand Street ? How about the dead pets in the basements, stuff seeping up from people's basements, Kodak buying the houses on Rand Street, How about when they got caught and fined by the EPA for illegal dumpin? The high rate of ex employees dying of cancer and the childhood brain cancer clusters found with a square mile of kodak park ? Yeah they did a lot for Rochester.... They also laid off or fired 25% of their workforce at the end of every 3rd quarter like clockwork throughout the 90's to show a huge profit in the fourth quarter right in time for Christmas.... Then they would hire back temp workers to take the place of all they laid off. I know of a bunch of people that I went to school with whose parents worked 20, 25, & 30 years only to have a pinkslip one day for some b.s. reason. If your fired they dont have to pay unemployment! They ruined Rochester. The Rochester community turned a blind eye to all the pollution they did, bought only their product and were loyal an what did they do in return ? built factories in Mexico and shipped jobs out of the country! It may have been a great place when George Eastman was alive but after he died the greed came in and ruined it.

  2. Good. by Cold+hard+reality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This way they were actually able to get it done.

  3. Hey watcha doin? by toygeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Moving nuclear materials. The usual."

    1. Re:Hey watcha doin? by imadork · · Score: 2

      Hey, where's Perry?

  4. Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by GeneralSecretary · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Los Angeles used to have a little experimental reactor in UCLA. It was quite controversial once residents found out about it. http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ucla-history-nuclear-reactor.html

    1. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 2

      which had the power of 100 toasters

      Sounds like my first PC. Or a new superhero.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    2. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by flink · · Score: 5, Interesting

      MIT still does: http://web.mit.edu/nrl/www/

    3. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Los Angeles used to have another experimental reactor, until it melted down, fell over, then sank into the swamp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#Sodium_reactor_experiment

    4. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interestingly, in crazy Europe, they have nuclear reactors inside major cities too, and without much controversy or resistance. Most people there do not even know they live a few hundred meters from a potential nuclear ground zero:

      http://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/zentrum/grossgeraete/ber2/index_en.html
      http://www.enygf.eu/technical-visits/training-reactor-vr1.html

      What's more, these are testing facilities, a hocus pocus test sites.

    5. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      MANY universities have reactors on campus. Where do you think we get Nuclear Engineers? I live a couple of miles from the UW-Madison reactor. It's been running for 40 years without issue. http://reactor.engr.wisc.edu/

    6. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Huh... so that's why L.A. is full of freaks and mutants...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are three reactors in (or very near) Prague, all of them for undergrad and students and powernuke-technicians-in-training to play with. Some material experiments and other studies needing intense radiation are performed there, too. Nobody gives a damn. We should be actually quite proud of them, everything here is home-built. Damned Austrians with their silly alarmist shrieks, though.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by dbc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. IIRC, the commonly used unit 30 years ago or so was the UTR-10 -- "University Teaching Reactor 10". Pretty much any engineering school with a nuclear engineering program back then had one of those hiding some place that was.... umm.... not well advertised. I haven't kept up, but I suspect the same unit or maybe a slightly updated design is still common. It wasn't weapons grade Uranium, though, but certainly fissionable because the whole point was learning to operate a power generation reactor as would be found at an electric utility or on a US Navy vessel.

      I wouldn't have known about it at all except that my roommate's girlfriend was a NucE student who trained on it. It's existence wasn't widely known. More students could navigate the steam tunnels than knew how to find the reactor.

    9. Re:Reminds me about LA's nuclear reactor by jaymemaurice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      hmmm I nominate toaster power to be a new standard unit of measurement for future slashdot articles and comments where we would normally use watts.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  5. Just out of curiosity... by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    Looking at the picture of the device in TFA, doesn't it look like there are shadows of people on the wall around it?

    Now, if I was a conspiracy theorist....

    myke

  6. Surprising... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not so surprised that some rather alarmingly powerful beam sources would be operated quietly by people with atypical sensor needs. I am a bit surprised that 3.5 lbs of highly enriched Uranium would be available to serve as a beam source.

    Not telling the neighbors about a scary-sounding piece of industrial/scientific apparatus is one thing, having enough nuclear material to interest a proliferation wonk in your basement, on the other hand, seems like it would raise eyebrows...

    1. Re:Surprising... by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not so surprised that some rather alarmingly powerful beam sources would be operated quietly by people with atypical sensor needs. I am a bit surprised that 3.5 lbs of highly enriched Uranium would be available to serve as a beam source.

      I'm sure that in 1985 enriched uranium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by.

    2. Re:Surprising... by Isaac-1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering the amount of DOD sensor work they did I am not surprised at all.

    3. Re:Surprising... by PPH · · Score: 2

      Well, 3.5 pounds might be a bit of a problem. Costco only stocks it in the 50 lb containers.

      Don't drop it on your way out to the parking lot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Surprising... by Zcar · · Score: 5, Informative

      3.5 lbs? Get another 30 times as much and you'll be close to a critical mass (bare sphere, 85% enriched). 3.5 lbs isn't that dangerous or, by itself, all that interesting from a nuclear weapons proliferation standpoint.

      Fission occurred, but it needed to be pumped by an external neutron source and a runaway chain reaction was pretty much impossible. We're only talking about a ~6 cm sphere of it.

  7. Research rector in Finland by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Informative

    The department of physics at our university (Aalto university, Finland) has their own nuclear reactor. This brings the total number of nuclear reactors in Finland to five.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Research rector in Finland by burne · · Score: 2

      The TU in Delft, the Netherlands has a nice toy for students as well. At 2 MW(th) and with an imminent upgrade to 3 MW(th) it's not a small one either.

  8. I had a clue by Steve1952 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was in Rochester as a small boy in the 1950's, and knew about the reactor from about the age of 4 or so. As I recall, some of the cooling water drained into a small duck pond (surrounded about the fence). I was told that there was some small amount of radioactivity, although no one much was concerned at the time. At any rate, the main thing that got through my 4 year old mind was that for some reason it was not a good idea to try to climb the fence or get near the ducks. At any rate, it was generally known, and not a secret.

    1. Re:I had a clue by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even at 4, you were smart enough not to mess with the 400 pound, 8 foot high ducks.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I had a clue by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Not hard to avoid, even if it's a moonless night.

      I'd be more worried about the duck specials at the Wegmans.

  9. reactors on ebay? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    I was wondering if anyone selling reactors on ebay (not legal but so is selling human kidneys, which someone always post), I did find a Lionel at only $269.95 (C-9 Factory New - Brand New), http://www.ebay.com/itm/LIONEL-24294-NUCLEAR-REACTOR-/160558274893

    But if you can't buy it, then gotta make it as this "fusioneer" as described in "Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853 (though I have doubts as the experts at Lawrence Livermore been talking for 50 years they should have in 10 years able to demonstrate electric power production from a fusion reactor.) But I guess having a fusion reactor working or not in the basement would be pretty cool.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  10. General Atomics in San Diego by sdguero · · Score: 2

    I just found out, after making a wrong turn and then doing a little research, that General Atomics plays with experimental nuclear and fusion reactor prototypes just a few miles down the road from our office building. I think it's really freakin' cool but I sure there would be a big hubballoo if more San Diegans knew about it.

    1. Re:General Atomics in San Diego by bware · · Score: 4, Informative

      General Atomics plays with experimental nuclear and fusion reactor prototypes just a few miles down the road from our office building. I think it's really freakin' cool but I sure there would be a big hubballoo if more San Diegans knew about it.

      It's called General Atomics, for chrissakes. I mean, it's not as though they're disguising it.

  11. 24 nuclear universities in just the US by ace37 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia lists 29 active and licensed civilian reactors; the majority of them belong to universities. Most were built in the 60's, most are General Atomics TRIGA reactors, and the power outputs range from 1 W to 10 MW. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

    A few other civilian groups are licensed to have nuclear material, and of course other sectors and nations have lots of the stuff. It's really pretty common.

    1. Re:24 nuclear universities in just the US by pla · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia lists 29 active and licensed civilian reactors

      That does not give an exhaustive list - URI, for example, has (had?) not just the "big" one everyone knew about (as listed on that page), but at least one other that I've personally seen (an open-pool reactor with an output on the order of a hundred watts - And for the record, pictures of Cerenkov radiation just don't do it justice); and I recall hearing about (from a reliable source, not student gossip) a third.

  12. Just curious... by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many as-yet undetected meth labs pose more danger?

  13. Re:Big picture by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, Iran with its 70+ million population, is sanctioned for building reactor, while in USA individual private companies. Makes sense in global media idiocracy we live in!

    Right. Because a tiny research reactor in a federally licensed facility in the US with tight control over its small load of enriched uranium, and which does not breed more weapons-grade material, is EXACTLY THE SAME as a program of large reactors in an unstable nation that's actively trying to develop nuclear weapons. Yeah, that sounds like a problem with the media to me.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  14. Re:Reporting Error by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    armed guards were surely on hand

    This is how you discern a conservative: they speculate about things they have no knowledge of, forming conclusions based only on what they believe "ought to be" and then use that speculation as the basis for their beliefs.

    This is how you discern a hypocritical asshole: someone who does exactly the thing they're bitching about someone else doing, but without noticing it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  15. It's the centrifuge, not the reactor by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    So far as I know, nobody cares about the electric plant. It's the *enrichment* plant that everyone is concerned about. With their own centrifuge, there's nothing to stop them from enriching uranium to weapons-grade (80%+) material.

    If you go back and read the news more carefully, I think you'll find all the sanctions discussion revolves around the centrifuge.

  16. Penn State has oldest reactor by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_University_Radiation_Science_%26_Engineering_Center

    They used to give tours to science undergraduates. It was a big swimming pool and you could see the Cherenkov radiation as you watched from the top of the pool.

    Very interesting!

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  17. Re:Most unusual part of the story - weapons grade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    My understanding is that "weapons grade" only refers to a degree of purity, and not to actual intent... but I still have to wonder why they chose to have a "weapons grade" reactor to begin with. What benefits are there to having this as opposed to say standard Uranium reactors?

    It's a neutron source, not a power-generating reactor. It used a smidgeon (tenth of a gram or so) of Cf-252 to spit out some initial neutrons, said neutrons being used to kick off a small (non-self-sustaining) chain reaction in the U-235. The U-235 reaction multiplies the Cf-252 flux by a few orders of magnitude and is the source of the overwhelming majority of the neutron flux. In order to keep such a source compact (and in order to not have to deal with the complications afforded by exposing tons of U-238 to a neutron flux), you probably need to use HEU for such a device.

    Once you've got it up and running, you can then use the neutrons to activate other materials and observe the spectra of whatever your neutron-activated target material emits, which probably enables you to know with a very high degree of accuracy, what your target material was made of. Once you're done with it, pull out the Californium and the whole thing shuts itself down.

    It's kind of crazy to think that we've got Iran spending so much of their state resources trying to manufacture enriched uranium meanwhile we've got Kodak sitting on 3.5lbs of the stuff in a basement in NY doing rando-tests with it.

    Kodak didn't make the HEU, the DoE made the HEU. Kodak was licensed to use it, under very strict controls. It wasn't "hidden in a basement lab", it was buried in a basement for both radiological and security reasons, and it wasn't "forgotten about", its existence just wasn't widely publicized. The DoE knew where it was all the time. It just didn't want to publicize it, for obvious reasons.

  18. You clearly have never been to Rochester by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Back in its heyday you could smell Rochester on the approach by car from all the caustic chemicals Kodak used in the mass production process. If they're worried about a neutron generator used for metallurgical testing then they should be wearing a gasmask from simply living IN Rochester.

  19. Re:Big picture by cdrguru · · Score: 2

    I suspect if the Fearless Leader of Kodak went on international TV and made a speech about how they were going to wipe "Fuji off the map" to eliminate their problems, someone might have wondered if they really needed that nuclear device. As it is, Iran is likely to get a lot closer to being able to eliminate their Israeli problem once and for all and settle the Palestinian issue - unless of course Israel decides that the survival of their population trumps getting brownie points in the international debating society.

    My guess is Iran will get closer and then take a major hit from Israel. The US will do nothing except claim (still) that the sanctions are working.

  20. Neutron Radiography by caferace · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In the early 80's, fresh from a move to Northern California I took a job ($7.50 an hour or so) working at a lab that did Neutron Radiography. The process and results themselves are actually really cool. We'd test things like turbine blades for jet aircraft for porosity or residual casting material, welding flaws in Space Shuttle engines. Neat stuff. Then, it was sort of off in an orchard area with a few houses around. Now? Subdivisions, crowd it. That being said, it really is a low-impact sort of deal. Fire up the reactor in the morning, work, power it down in the afternoon. Within 20 minutes of shutdown you could walk past the containment wall, peer down into the pool and watch the blue glow fade. Neat job, for someone just exploring their potential career field. Twenty years later, I was back in the radiography field from a medical devices software bent.

    And yes, well after, my reproductive organs functioned just fine, thank you. ;)

    -jim