What a neat device. Unlike those extra spicy, dangerous sources that say "drop and run" on them, this thing only runs when you line up the CF-252 with the HEU plates. It has an off switch to stop the cascade. Perfect for lab use.
Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#12> Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine trusting private corporations with the stuff atomic bombs are made of today.
Valar Atomics would like a word.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#13Quote: "and though it takes roughly 100 pounds of it to build an atomic bomb...” Are they stupid at PM or just selling misinformation?
This matches other sources on the internet: a bomb requires about 15kg of U-235 [0] with a good use of neutron reflectors, and HEU by definition contains 20%+ of U-235 [1]. We don't know exactly what the U-235 concentration was in the Kodak device, but reasonable values would make the claim "roughly" correct. [0] https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon/Princip... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriche…
Their SNM license was for “up to 93.5% enriched”[1] and their decommissioning plan describes them as MTR-type Al-clad plates. So I’d take a reasonable guess that these are at 93% nominal enrichment, like ATR and HFIR fuel plates.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#14It wasn't a secret like the article admits later on.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me?
> And aside from a license renewal snafu in 1980, the device made no waves until its existence was shared with the local newspaper—it wasn’t a secret, just unpublicized.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#15It wasn't a secret like the article admits later on.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me? > And aside from a license renewal snafu in 1980, the device made no waves until its existence was shared with the local newspaper—it wasn’t a secret, just unpublicized.
I think "secret nuclear device" and "license renewal" are kind of conceptually incongruous, even if only at a surface level.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me? > And aside from a license renewal snafu in 1980, the device made no waves until its existence was shared with the local newspaper—it wasn’t a secret, just unpublicized.
I think "secret nuclear device" and "license renewal" are kind of conceptually incongruous, even if only at a surface level.
The license renewal has nothing to do with anything. It's not related to the incident where its existence was revealed. This is about "secret" vs "unpublicized", not "secret" vs "license renewal".
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#17When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside.
The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every so often someone would find out there was plutonium etc in the basement and have a public freak out, including on occasion other (non-STEM) professors at the same university. These people would try to organize crusades to get it shut down because evil. Intentionally obscuring its existence greatly mitigated this drama. They appreciated us continuing the tradition of keeping it out of sight and out of mind from the general public.
The publicity around this Kodak case was an example of why no one talks about nuclear labs. The public cannot be trusted to engage in a discussion about anything “nuclear” in good faith. There are quite a few areas of science like this.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#18It wasn't a secret like the article admits later on.
There are no secrets in a legal sense e.g. NDAs. However, there is a culture around private nuclear labs of giving no hint of their existence so that they can hide in plain sight.
The objective is to avoid attention, not to be secret per se, though the effect can be similar.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#19When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…
This is just like how universities hide their animal research facilities. It wasn't until the final year of my biology degree that I found out we had a basement floor under our life sciences building where this research is carried out.
I visited a few times as part of a research project I was involved in, and that experience was one of the factors that put me off pursuing a career in biomedical research.
Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades
#20When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…
These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy.
The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.