It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weapons Grade Uranium Hidden

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Ok this is crazy but Kodak had their own nuclear reactor loaded with 3.5 pounds of enriched uranium in a building in Rochester, NY, just makes you think why would Kodak have a hidden nuclear reactor is such a major city.

gizmodo.com...




It's extremely strange that Kodak managed to get this. According to Miles Pomper, from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington. it's "such an odd situation because private companies just don't have this material."




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I find it ironic with all the laws that are put in place worldwide to protect against nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, a company such as Kodak would be given such freedom to flaunt regulations and also moral guidance and place somthing so dangerous in a populated city.

Just Incredible



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmaracing
I find it ironic with all the laws that are put in place worldwide to protect against nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, a company such as Kodak would be given such freedom to flaunt regulations and also moral guidance and place somthing so dangerous in a populated city.

Just Incredible


A CFM is not the same as a normal reactor in the sense that you think of nuclear reactor that provides power. But I know your little fear mongering heart will continue to push this issue so what ever.

here is the decom plan planned for Kodaks reactor: PDF of kodaks docom plan


The decom was subbmitted for public recored in 2008, so this isn't exactly breaking news.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
As you can see by the followong paragraph, this reactor has been in operation for quit some time:


2.2.1.3 Starting in the mid-1970s, two 14 MeV neutron generators were added to the radiation
cavity and they were also used for R&D purposes. In 1999, one of the generators was
reconditioned for further planned research activities. The other generator is currently
inoperable. The neutron generators and the portion of the cavity occupied by them will
not be released as part of the CFX project.
edit on 14-5-2012 by mileysubet because: paragraph from the decom plan



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
First off there was no fear mongering, but the notion that a company such as Kodak can possess such a thing in a major city is beyond comprehension, just for your information evan MIT reactor does not contain 3 Pounds of uranium.
Since you are so quick to respond do you even understand how much 3 pounds is. also thank you for the info you provided.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Fission Weapons



The "Fat Man" atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 used 6.2 kilograms of plutonium and produced an explosive yield of 21-23 kilotons [a 1987 reassessment of the Japanese bombings placed the yield at 21 Kt]. Until January 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would typically be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Subsequently, however, DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms. Some US scientists believe that 1 kilogram of plutonium will suffice.

                    Uranium-235       Plutonium-239


Thick Tamper:      15 kg                5 kg                  3:1





So the question is, is three and a half pounds enough to yield half a ' fat man ' ? Chew on that.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by emberscott
 


the ironic thing is we talk about nuclear facilities lake of security, and about how sometimes grams are not accounted for,and everyone goes on lockdown, but we are supposed to believe that all those years kodak never had an issue and how many people in the surrounding area would have accepted such a thing.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Until recently Kodak manufactured X-Ray film. They might still, just not the type we used to use.

Could have been something to do with that.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
company is just an artificial person to get away with ish, like USA & CIA

the real persons behind the corporation need to be held responsible

otherwise, virtually all the companies are gonna get away with this - POISONING THE ENVIRONMENT

till it blows up with no one to be held be responsible not in this world/dimension, anyways




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
For a neutron generator why not rip apart some Helium.
Why pose such atomic energy commission details for a still unknown reason.
Just more elite dealings that push people around for their own will.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I'm quite sure that Kodak obtained their reactor legally. Think about this, the best security is secrecy and aparently almost nobody knew about Kodak's reactor. That's pretty good security. If I were you guys, I'd be more concerned about the nuclear material lost in Georgia and Pennsylvania than with Kodak"s reactor, not to mention the tons of material unaccounted for after the breakup of the USSR.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

the best security is secrecy


i think most security people would disagree with that statement.


The argument that secrecy is good for security is naive, and always worth rebutting. Secrecy is beneficial to security only in limited circumstances, and certainly not with respect to vulnerability or reliability information. Secrets are fragile; once they're lost, they're lost forever. Security that relies on secrecy is also fragile; once secrecy is lost there's no way to recover security. Trying to base security on secrecy is simply bad design.

The Non-Security of Secrecy

edit on 5/14/2012 by roadgravel because: Link title



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I think this case is an exception. How do you attack or steal something that you don't know exists?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I bet that someone interested in the field would find ties to it because they are looking. The general person doesn't because they re not searching. I bet there are people who knew workers there that knew of it.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join