worrisome news

[james_davis_nicoll]

Misinformation about fusion may impede deployment of a technology unlikely to be delivered in a practical, commercial form during our lifetimes.

Comments

[oh6]

Public misapprehension of problems with fusion energy prevents recognition of the many actual problems with fusion energy.

[(Anonymous)]

I do wonder what "inherently safe" means. I doubt that any form of power generation is inherently safe. While less of a problem that with fission, fusion does produce radioactive waste. Even aneutronic fusion (which is further from our reach) produces radioactive waste via side reactions and gamma excitation (an excited state of an atom may decay to a radioactive isotope by beta emission rather than back to the ground state via gamma emission). Perhaps they mean that runaway power excursions (leading to meltdown, etc.) don't occur; in that case the term also to some fission power designs.

[(Anonymous)]

People say "There is no safe level" - I remember Doctor Who saying it. But don't bananas produce radioactive waste?

Robert Carnegie

[jessie_c]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

[neowolf2]

The focus on safety is based on the misapprehension that fission has failed because of public perception of its safety.

[(Anonymous)]

I think of this as standard bait and switch that refers to "acceptable risk" (carefully leaving that undefined) as "inherently safe" or not, depending on context. Compare https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras.