It also contained the following information: (i) that the fire started in the projection box, (ii) that the cinema had been showing a special season of Soviet musicals from the 1930s, and (iii) that some very rare prints of these, supplied by the Russian State Film Archive, had been destroyed in the fire.

There was also a photo of the projection box - showing one projector (a Meopta I think) and a five-deck platter beside it.

Were they doing what I think they were doing???!!!
 

A few years ago, a friend and I started looking for a copy of a 1925 feature called "Conquest of Caanan" that was filmed here in downtown Asheville. It was presumed lost years ago, and the studio, Paramount, was not helpful. In fact, my friend was told by someone on the phone that they were not interested in that old stuff.

Persistance eventually paid off. My friend found that a print existed in Russia. The print they had was nitrate and had russian title cards. After some negotiations, and some city finances, we obtained a perfect new 10 reel print on safety stock. I am astounded at the sharpness of the print, cosidering it is a dupe. I assembled it onto 4 2000' reels. I could not read the Russian, so I went by the numbers at the bottom of each of the title cards. I must have gotten it right, as it was transferred in Atlanta to tape, and the print was returned to Asheville.
The film has been shown on cable TV several times with new english title cards translated from "old" Russian by a friend.

The print sat in City Hall for a couple of years before we got it back. It almost was thrown out during a city renovation project!

It is now here with my collection. I cant tell what the film stock is, but it sure smells good. I have run it on my Holmes once.

It is not a very good movie. It bombed on the first release.

The reason I mention this is because they do have a big collection of nitrate in Russia. I cant believe they would run the musical prints without taking major precautions.

Question: Could the nitrate sliding on the surface of the platter cause a spark that could ignite the film?

We all know about static with polyester bases.

Possibly just being such bad movies that they just burst into flames?

quote:

---

Were they doing what I think they were doing???!!!

---

If there was no evidence of magazines, & you're thinking they were running nitrate film on a platter....

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

Oh those Russians aren't having too good a time of late, are they?
 

Anyway, it would seem that the platter full of nitrate was me being paranoid.

I wonder if it could possibly happen, though... distributor wants to re-release classic film and buys rights, exchange/depot says "oh yes, we've got a print of that which has been sitting around for ages, hardly used at all", no-one involved in any of this knows anything about nitrate, film is delivered to multiplex and made up by inexperienced trainee...
 

I think it'd be like pulling teeth from a grizly bear to get the American Film Institute or the Library of Congress to let a film like that out of their sight!
 

I'm still amazed at what one foot of nitrate will do - burn like a gas jet. Just think what 12,000ft on a platter would do! What were they thinking - or more precisely, were they thinking at all!

Never run nitrate (at home or theatre) unless you have spool boxes, fire traps, projector door and fire extinguishers close by. Most nitrate is full of nicks and often in poor condition (its all at least 48 years old) so be careful!

I still argue that it is one of the most stable film stocks though. I have nitrate from pre 1920 still in perfect condition. Can anyone prove that acetate or polyester lasts longer - produce the goods!

David

 

If it's anything like flash cotton, WOAH!!!! If a platter full of nitrate ever went up, I bet it'd be like the Fourth of July!!!!!

One scene in the film shows a 1,000ft roll being set on fire. It's like a car petrol tank going up - even the sailor who lit the end (he'd unrolled about 20 feet of it laid out flat, which he then used as a 'fuse' to light) had to take several steps back - presumably because of the force of the heat.

In this country it's illegal to have nitrate on any premises to which the public are admitted without a special licence from the local authority. To my knowledge, the National Film Theatre and the Imperial War Museum (both in London) are the only cinemas which have one.

So even if you do have fire traps, spool boxes, liquid cooled gates and fireproof, automatically lowered porthole covers, you still can't show nitrate unless the government lets you.
 

The Kodak website has quite a bit of information about nitrate film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/environment/nitrate.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/booklet.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage3.shtml#nitratea http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/identification.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/preservation.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/mole.shtml

Date code information is at:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/dateCode.shtml

Kodak has been putting date codes on motion picture film since 1916!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Kodak publication H-182 has the information: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/booklet.shtml

BTW, anyone with nitrate film should contact a recognized film archive to see if it is rare and needs to be preserved. NEVER store nitrate film in occupied or public buildings. Only approved nitrate film vaults should be used. Storing nitrate film in a home or theatre is likely to void any fire or liability insurance you have.

To show the dangers involved with nitrate film, here is the tragic story of the "Cleveland Clinic Fire" in 1929:
http://www.ccf.org/act/frames/chp3/chp3_1.htm
http://www.ccf.org/act/frames/chp3/chp3_2.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

The answer: It isn't 1937 ... It's 1917!

The inner two feet are destroyed -- the emulsion has disintegrated, but the rest of the film images are intact; it's still very flexible, not brittle at all, no emulsion tackiness outside of the inner two feet, with little sprocket damage. The film has shrunk about 2%. (I laid it over a piece of new film, and the 49th hole on the nitrate lines up with the 48th hole on the estar.)

Yes, I know to keep this film cool, dry, well ventilated, and never to project it!

- John
 

Maybe you have one of the ten "lost classic" films that the American Film Institute is looking for:
http://www.irsmarketing.com/adventures/Frankenstein/may5th.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

Never run nitrate (at home or theatre) unless you have spool boxes, fire traps, projector door and fire extinguishers close by. Most nitrate is full of nicks and often in poor condition (its all at least 48 years old) so be careful!"

I would be very surprised indeed if nitrate has never been run on a platter. These things have now been around for a long time, and I'm sure that it must have happened from time to time. While the probability of a nitrate print igniting while being projected is low, the consequenses if it did happen while being run on a platter in a modern box (booth), would be so serious, as to not bear thinking about. I am not sure if the risk of this happening is increasing, or reducing; There are less nitrate prints around today, but there are also few projectionists who work with nitrate, or who have ever seen any, and therefore, there is a greater chance that a nitrate print could slip through without being spotted, if one did turn up. I recently had through my hands a nitrate short, which had about 30 feet of junk spliced on to the head. I can think of no reason to do this, other than to run it from a platter, I cannot be certain, but I think this print had been run this way at some time.

I did just once have an unexpected nitrate print delivered, and it was what is supposed not to exist; a nitrate 16mm print. This was about 20 years ago, when I was working as a technician in a school. Something didn't seem quite right about this print when I inspected it, it smelt a bit odd, and didn't feel quite right. I didn't think of nitrate at first, you don't expect it with 16mm, but I was not happy about this print, and eventually I tested a clipping from it. I had great difficulty geting the film library to believe me when I 'phoned them, but in the end they did, and I was right. This print was of Russian origin, and another similar one in the library was on safety stock. I suspect that a roll of the wrong stock was put through the 16mm slitter/perforator in error, at a time when the same factory was producing both.

This print had been around for decades, and would have been projected many times, under quite unsuitable conditions, without mishap, but it is possible that it could have ignited, and a nitrate fire, even of just a few hunderd feet, in a school classroom, would be a most serious matter.

I think that anyone who handles film today, even if they normally only see new prints, still needs to be aware of nitrate, it is still possible, if unlikely, that an old nitrate print will turn up from somewhere one day.

Nitrate film is a hazardous material, only a fool would claim otherwise, but people handle other hazardous materials, without causing major disasters. People fill their cars with petrol every day, yet you don't often hear of motorists incinerating themselves by doing this. I would consider petrol to be more dangerous than nitrate, it is a liquid, is highly volatile, and the vapor ignites very easily. If somebody sranding in a room full of people were to drop a roll of nitrate film, not a lot would happen. If the same person were to spill a litre of petrol it would stread out over a large area, this, combined with the high volatility, would result in a high concentration of vapor in the air, chich could travel a considerable distance to a source of ignition, which could be nothing more than a small spark, yet people who handle petrol every day, and think nothing of it, are terrified at the thought of nitrate film. I would certainly not store nitrate at home, (nor would I store cans of petrol), I have worked on it at home, a single reel reel at a time, but always remove it before going to bed. Providing it is in good condition, a properly equipped projection box is used, and all reasonable precautions are taken, nitrate film can be projected without undue risk, there used to be thousands of theatres doing it every night, and serious fires were not common.

I see no risk why this should not be done today. Sadly, it is now almost impossible, at least here in the uk, to find anywhere that can still do this. If we totally ban the projection of nitrate, then it will be quite impossible to see processes such as cemented Technicolor which look quite different in their original form to a modern chromogenic dupe.

"I still argue that it is one of the most stable film stocks though. I have nitrate from pre 1920 still in perfect condition. Can anyone prove that acetate or polyester lasts longer - produce the goods!"

I too have seen nitrate of this age, and older, which looked as good as new. On the other hand, in the early '70s I saw a roll of late nitrate, then only about twenty years old, and it was little more than sticky dust. I think that good quality nitrate, well processed, and stored under good conditions is at least as good as diacetate and triacetate in this respect, and probably better. As for polyester, I don't think anyone knows for sure, it hasn't been around long enough. Everyone thought triacetate was far more stable than nitrate didn't they, then we got a nasty shock.

As for the other on-going debate about nitrate, that of it looking better than safety stocks, I am not convinced; but am prepared to be so, if someone presents better evidence than I have seen so far. I recently projected several samples of nitrate, diacetate, triacetate and polyester film, the best examples of each that I could find all looked very good. The diacetate was 16mm, as I was unable to find any 35mm on this base, all other film was 35mm, and all was black and white. Projection of both guages was by carbon arc, on the same screen. I have seen good and bad nitrate, the same with safety.

One possible reason I can think of for the good reputation which nitrate has is this: The final demise of nitrate stock came at about the same time as the introduction to general use of Eastmancolor, and other similar, chromgenic stocks. Within just a few years of this, colour had become very much the norm for feature film production, black and white being mainly used for low-budget work, newsreels, television etc. I am now 45, and I can only remember seeing one or two new feature films in the cinema, not including a few made in more recent times for reasons of artistic choice. Most of the black and white material I saw was of poor quality, newsreels, low contrast telecine prints, poor video transfers and 16mm prints shown at school which were in very poor condition, and should have been scrapped years, if not decades, before. To make matters worse, these were projected with dim tungsten lamps.

I think that many people have only seen poor quality black and white film, several people have been amased when I have shown them what it can look like, and it can look very good, whatever base the stock is on. Could it be that good quality black and white largely died out at about the same time as nitrate, and that what people are seeing as an advantage of nitrate is, in fact, rather an advantage of older film, which just happens to be nitrate because of its age?

With television having converted to colour many years ago, 16mm projection in schools etc. now largely a thing of the past, and black and white no longer cheaper than colour, we are now seeing monochrome as 'art', its status has changed, and we are now more likely to see good prints than we have been for many years. Some recent prints which I have sen of classic films, on polyester stock, have looked very good indeed.

quote:

---

I did just once have an unexpected nitrate print delivered, and it was what is supposed not to exist; a nitrate 16mm print.... This print was of Russian origin, and another similar one in the library was on safety stock. I suspect that a roll of the wrong stock was put through the 16mm slitter/perforator in error, at a time when the same factory was producing both.

---

It probably was not an error. 16mm nitrate film stock was supposedly common in Russia.
 

Have you ever seen such a print? I too have heard the reports of 16mm nitrate stock being used in Russia, but I have seen many Russian 16mm prints, and have never come across another nitrate one. The film library checked all their other Russian prints, they had a number of others, all of which were safety, including another copy of the same title. When I was in Russia myself in 1974, I saw film being projected in a number of exhibitions etc., which, had they been in this country, would probably have used 16mm, but all of these were 35mm.

I don't think that Nitrate was as commonly used as the rumors suggest. All I can be certain of is that at least one such print did exist. I think it is more likely that such prints were made, either in error, or due to a shortage of safety stock from time to time, Russia was well known for shortages of just about everything at various times, and some factory worker being under pressure to supply an order for 16mm thinking that they could get away with using nitrate, and nobody would notice.

While I was in Moscow, I did manage to visit the projection box of a cinema, and it was fully equipped as I would expect to see in a British box built for nitrate. The Russians were clearly aware of the dangers of nitrate; I really doubt that it was normal practice to make 16mm prints on nitrate stock, but I cannot be certain about this.

It is worrying that the print I found had been in circulation for twenty years or more, and had been projected in many schools during that time, without anybody discovering the fact. You could probably not expect teachers, and other staff in schools, to be aware of nitrate film, but this should have been picked up by the film library when the print was taken into stock; I don't know where it came from, whether it was supplied new from Russia, or if they obtained it used, from another source. I suppose that nobody expects to find 16mm nitrate, and that therefore they do not bother to look for it.

To repeat what I said in my previous post, I think that everyone who handles film today should still be aware of nitrate, and that no film which is old enough for there to be any possibility of it being nitrate, or which is of unknown age should ever be assumed to be safety, nor should edge markings be relied upon to identify a film stock.

Someone starting work today in a modern multiplex may think they will never see a nitrate print; they probably never will, but there is always the possibility of something odd, like a private hire by a company for some special event, where they supply film from their own archive. Under these circumstances a nitrate print could, just possibly, turn up.

 

I remember the day when a partner at a 42nd Street Theatre informed me
that a tech was coming to remove the enclosed film magazines that were
no longer required by law, and that we would be able to run 6000' reels from open spindles.

Robert Sprague sent me a copy of a one-page historic memo from the Fire Underators, permitting the use of open reels in a theatre running
safety film. That single page became the death certificate of many single-screen theatres, and opened the floodgates to the deluge of multi-and giga-plexes that followed.

As a child playing in the streets, one kid would supply us with
nitrate film (I remember inages of Chaplin and Rin-Tin-Tin on them)
and showed us how to roll a couple of feet in newspaper,and twist the edges tight like a party-favor. Then one would light the paper with a match, the rest would run back, and the lighter would run forward
when the film ignited, and stamp it out, whereupon blue-brown smoke would pour out with a most noxious odor. We called them "stink bombs" (I later learned they were used in political and labor conflicts.) Poor-boy fireworks, perhaps, innocently if dangerously
used by us, although an older boy was arrested for throwing one into a candy store.

Once in an old booth on 42nd Street I found a rusted 100' film can
under a film vault. The nitrate film inside had completely deteriorated into a brown powder with an unforgettable aroma...
 

I know of a few people that collect, store, handle and even project nitrate film. Two of them have varified that Film-Guard is safe on Nitrate too.

Apparantly, one of the keys to nitrate film is to air it out periodically and not let the gasses build up in the can (and never seal the cans).

I can tell you, I've seen nitrate on a platter (just a short, not a feature length) and it wasn't the brightest move I've ever seen(...then again anything on a platter isn't a bright idea, but that is just me ).

While nitrate can certainly be the makings of a disaster, it certainly isn't the guaranteed fire starter some make it out to be. It definately has a look that I find more pleasing than any of today's stocks...color or B&W.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Stephen: Point taken about never letting your guard down - as I mentioned in the 'nitrate vs. newer stocks' thread, a film originated on safety negative or duplicated through safety intermediate stock can end up being printed on nitrate release print stock, hence confusing edge marks. However, given that the stuff has a finite lifetime there will come a point when the only nitrate left is in the care of professional archivists, and theoretically there will come a point when it's all gone. I've posted a 1951 guide to identifying nitrate from on that thread. Here is what the International Federation of Film Archives has to say on the matter:

quote:

---

7.5.1.a Edge Markings. For decades, film with an acetate [or polyester] base has been marked 'safety' on one or both edges of the film [by 'edge' I presume they mean the space between the perforations and the outer edge of the film surface], outside the perforations. However, you should treat this information with some caution because the marks could have been printed through from an earlier generation with a different base.

7.5.1.b Float test. The organic and toxic liquid trichloroethylene has a specific gravity between that of acetate and that of nitrate film. That means that while a small piece punched from a nitrate film will sink, a punching of acetate film will float on the surface of the trichloroethylene. However, the test is not completely reliable.

7.5.1.c Burning test. The commission does not recommend this method because it can be unreliable and unsafe, and because it consumes the film.

7.5.1.d Ultraviolet flourescence. Certain manufacturers, such as Kodak, incorporate a small amount of a flourescent chemical in the acetate film base - and this will flouresce when viewed under ultraviolet light.

Source: FIAF Preservation Commission, Preservation of Moving Images and Sound (ed. Henning Schou), pp. 36-37.

---

The float test is by far the most reliable, though I would not recommend the use of trichloroethylene in any environment other than a fume cabinet. There is a possibility that it could be carcinogenic.

Finally, I believe that Russian and Chinese 16mm nitrate is one of the topics covered in a new book being published next month on the history of nitrate, edited by Roger Smither of the Imperial War Museum film archive. I'll post details as soon as it's out. The Chinese certainly used it - I've seen a 16mm nitrate print of The Green River Flows East.

We were running Last of the Mohicans(no not the 1992 version Doris)
I had just completed a changeover when the film broke and all hell broke loose.The resulting fire was very intense but the fire trap did it's job and only the film in the picture head went up.
Unfortunately the other projectionist grabbed a bucket of sand and chucked that in the projector:eek(probably unnecessarily) as it would have just fizzled out.

The projector(Super Simplex) was thoroughly overhauled but never ran as sweetly ever again.

 

My understanding was that it's not legal to manufacture trichloroethane (CFCs), and so its probably pretty expensive to purchase, no?

On the other hand, it seems that you can buy it from the VWR Scientific catalog ($60/liter), though it says "Requires special licensing for purchase." I suppose that's lab grade, and one might want to thin it before use (with what?)...

--jhawk
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

True, but I think that point is a long way away. Under good conditions, nitrate can last a long time, and I would expect there to still be plenty of it around long after I am dead and gone.

"I've posted a 1951 guide to identifying nitrate from on that thread."

Identifying nitrate is not always easy; I would not expect everyone handling film to be able to do the tests, but I would expect them to be aware of the existance of nitrate, and that old prints could be made of this material. If they did receive a print about which they had any doubts, they could refer the matter to someone more experienced.

"Finally, I believe that Russian and Chinese 16mm nitrate is one of the topics covered in a new book being published next month on the history of nitrate, edited by Roger Smither of the Imperial War Museum film archive. I'll post details as soon as it's out. The Chinese certainly used it - I've seen a 16mm nitrate print of The Green River Flows East."

Do you have any idea when this print was made? As long ago as 1912, Pathe were aware of the need to use safety stock for non-theatrical purposes when they introduced their 28mm gauge, at least for prints, I think the negs may have been nitrate.

 

quote:

---

Under good conditions, nitrate can last a long time, and I would expect there to still be plenty of it around long after I am dead and gone.

---

I've seen research from the last couple of years suggesting that if the temperature and humidity can be lowered to appropriate levels, good quality nitrate (as opposed to bad stuff in which the cellulose base was manufactured from wood pulp with a high acid content) probably has a lifetime measured in hundreds of years.

That having been said, very few private individuals are able to maintain those collections. Reducing the temperature and humidity individually is not too difficult, but reducing both at the same time is a technical nightmare. Most dehumidifiers work by heating up the air until the moisture content evaporates out of it: therefore in order to condition air so that it is cold and dry, you need to dehumidify it and then cool it in a heat exchanger in such a way as to minimise the amount of moisture that is reintroduced. The plant needed to do this is fantastically expensive, both in terms of the capital equipment cost and running costs: I've heard that the National Film and Television Archive's vaults in Hertfordshire pay electricity bills of around £100k per year just for air handling. So I suspect the time when the only nitrate left is in the hands of archivists is probably no more than 20-25 years away, though I take your point about flagging the issue up in projectionist training.

quote:

---

Do you have any idea when this print was made? As long ago as 1912, Pathe were aware of the need to use safety stock for non-theatrical purposes when they introduced their 28mm gauge, at least for prints, I think the negs may have been nitrate.

---

Well the film (The Green River Flows East) was produced in 1948 so the print was certainly after then, though I don't know whether it dated from the film's initial release or was made later.

28mm negatives were indeed nitrate, with release prints on diacetate. My memory is sketchy on this but I believe the perforations were designed in such a way as to make it physically impossible to run nitrate elements on a domestic projector - they had four perfs per frame on one side and only one on the other, against the frame line - or something like that.

When the 16mm format was launched in 1923 George Eastman himself prohibited the manufacture of any non-safety base, stating that it nitrate must be kept out of the hands of amateurs. The quote and its source can be found in Brian Winston's book 'Technologies of Seeing' (London, 1998). The Eastern Bloc, it seems, didn't take any notice.
 

The IPE has an on-line "Preservation Calculator":
http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/8contents.htm

Kodak Molecular Sieves may be used to adsorb acid vapors and control film moisture content during storage in sealed containers:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage1.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

quote:

---

28mm negatives were indeed nitrate, with release prints on diacetate. My memory is sketchy on this but I believe the perforations were designed in such a way as to make it physically impossible to run nitrate elements on a domestic projector - they had four perfs per frame on one side and only one on the other, against the frame line - or something like that.

---

Leo,

If you search 28mm Film & Projectors in FHF you will find a sample of 28mm film.

If vented film storage containers are used, it would be prudent for the vault rooms to either have high air turnover, or use carbon adsorption to help remove acid vapors from the circulating air. Segregating deteriorating rolls should also be part of that strategy.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

You mentioned that the platter running Nitrate was most likely a

"....... platter model was the Chernobyl MKV............" Surely the American equivalent is the AW-3-Mile-Island ?