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.

 

Kodak Facility in New York state housed Underground Nuclear Reactor

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Kodak Facility in New York state housed Underground Nuclear Reactor


www.democratandchronicle.com

For more than 30 years, Kodak Park was home to a little-known underground labyrinth containing a small nuclear research reactor, one of the few of its kind in the world.

Still, the reactor was locked down, remotely surveilled and tightly regulated — mainly because it contained 3½ pounds of highly enriched uranium.

Company spokesman Christopher Veronda said he could find no record that Kodak ever made a public announcement of the facility. He also wasn’t sure whether the company had ever notified local police, fire or hazardous-materials officials.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.businessinsider.com




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
This is bizarre and scary...
Eastman Kodak Co., a private Company, holds a so terrible device? In perfect secrecy for 30 years....


Nuclear non-proliferation experts express surprise that an industrial manufacturer like Eastman Kodak had had weapons-grade uranium, especially in a post-9/11 world.

The Nuclear Reactor in the basement...


“I’ve never heard of it at Kodak,” said Miles Pomper, senior research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington. “It’s such an odd situation because private companies just don’t have this material.”

How many other hidden private nuclear facilities exist around us?

www.democratandchronicle.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.foxnews.com...

edit on 16-5-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


That doesn't surprise me, Kodak also had a truck wreck here in NC a while back with a tanker load of '___'.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 16-5-2012 by twitchy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
I seem to recall a number north of 400 for how many reactors are currently online and functional in the world. That was last year in the stats I gathered for all my Fukushima research. I'm sure that wasn't counting little hidey holes like this one. I wonder just how many REALLY exist and God help us...but in a SHTF situation where these might be abandoned by people with far more personal concerns that screwing with a reactor at work, what happens then?

Does anyone know if these small reactors have a mechanism to take them into a safe 'mode' or whatever it may be called if human attention suddenly ends for whatever reason? I'd sure hate to have a quake or riots or anything, really. Only then, do we find that 400 number is actually 600 or 700 or more as they start going out of control.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Let me get this straight:

A man drives past a state trooper and sets off the radiation alarm because he just had a medical procedure.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, Kodak can have a secret reactor for 30 years and no radiation alarms went off? I guess if it is shielded enough it wouldn't?
edit on 16-5-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Makes you wonder if a corporation like Kodak has a small one the size of a refrigerator what do realy big corporations like Microsoft or IBM have



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
when I read this article, I got the impression that kodak is no longer there??? how sad!!

I wasn't aware of that, if it's true. but if it is true, that leaves another question....I know that the machine was safely decommissions a couple decades or so, but did they leave the reactor in the building when they left?/ who knows, maybe they forgot it existed also....

if you read up on kodaks pollution you will find that the cancer rates are outrageous!! which I always attributed to the pollution, but well, got to rethink this one now... could there have been radiation leakage??



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


www.ga-esi.com... 66 small reactors were sold one of which was in Billingham ICI(North east england) for many years it was taken away to Windscale for decomissioning but hasnt been,even though the american government wanted it back!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The Willis (formerly Sears) Tower in Chicago, completed in 1973, has long been rumored to have a small reactor in the 3rd subbasement.

With over 4 million square feet, over 10,000 occupants and it's own zip code I do not find that hard to believe.

If reactors have a life of about 40 years it should be due for some maintenance soon.
edit on 16-5-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 



The Willis (formerly Sears) Tower in Chicago, completed in 1973, has long been rumored to have a small reactor in the 3rd subbasement.

I'm just having the mother of all facepalm moments in wondering what they'd be thinking to maintain such a thing to the present day. Can you imagine for even a moment what the activist atmosphere today would do if that were confirmed as fact for a small nuclear reactor to be operating a few levels under a downtown city like Chicago? Oh geeze... It'd become Mecca for every anti-nuke group on Earth. lol.....



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The proof would be if downtown Chicago ever had a major blackout but the tower did not lose power.

The story I heard was that it was not feasible (too costly) to tear up maybe 20 to 50 miles of the city to bring in enough electrical power for a project the size of the Sears Tower. Plus, for conventional power sources, they like to have at least one alternate source. The reactor was owned and run by the power company, then named Commonwealth Edison, who has/had several full scale reactors.

I have heard that the Sears (plus Discover card and outside clients) data center in the Chicago suburbs is deep underground with conventional electric power from 3 different sources plus generators and fuel for 30 days



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
A couple of points I made in another thread about this (though it seems this one was actually first):

1) This was not a personal power source, this was a research reactor given to them for analysis and was acquired in 1974.

2) As this was a research reactor it would not even have been highly enriched and even if it was and the device was built using a highly efficient neutron reflector, critical mass would still far exceed the amount stated. You would need over 100lbs of 235 of high purity (i.e. >80%) to achieve critical mass (without a neutron reflector), with a neutron reflector maybe 30-50 lbs. Whereas a research reactor utilises 235 of



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
and to think i have family that worked all over that building and others,so did i work for kodak exept in that one.my ex wife did, ill have to ask her how is she doing.anyway,that was a good few years back.what i am thinking,salmon fishing goes on not so far from it.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Looks very small and hardly any shielding.
Just in the corner and no entry station or door.
Looks like a power station.
Except for radiation warnings.
Left alone for so long the contents went weapons grade.
The floor looks clean and well kept and no dust accumulation for all those
years in the corner of the building.

Sure weapons grade.
Probably the Moray generator that can supply power and had to have
radiation stickers applied even at low levels.
A Tesla generator with no radiation danger at all would have radiation stickers
applied by the elite CIA power suppression.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
If you bother to read the original source, it wasn't a reactor, it was a neutron source for Kodak's research in to neutron imaging, and other projects.

The quantity of Uranium it housed was too small to produce power or go critical.

Please stop with the anti-radiation fearmongering.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


There is going to be many of these types of research devices around the world. I can not see how this is a problem. This device is not capable of causing any issues it seems.

I bet there are many many more dangerous devices like this in private hands that we will never onow about... until it is too late



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
When I tried to read the article I was blocked and it appears you have to be a Democrat and pay a monthly fee? A screen popped up actually asking are you a Democrat


Here is a link to the same article on another news site.

This appears to be an FYI story since the fuel was removed in 2007 and nobody was at risk. Interesting all the same.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
How long have they had this thing?

www.kued.org...



Declassified documents cited in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists highlighted yet another incident showing that the government was aware of the far-reaching effects of fallout. In the 1950s, film manufacturers at Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York wondered why their film was fogging as though it had been exposed to radiation. Scientists linked the fogged film to nuclear tests in Nevada. The government warned Kodak about expected areas of heavy fallout so they could protect unexposed film. People living downwind never received the same courtesy.


Fogged film blamed on nuclear test in Nevada or a reactor in the basement?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join