[nickik]

Fusion also produces radiation. So not sure why changing one word to the other should magically change public opinion.

We can just rename fission to #goodenergy or something, that would be cheaper then developing fusion.

People don't even know that nuclear reactors use fission, so the idea that this would change anything is crazy. People opposed will call fusion reactors 'nuclear' just like they do fission.

[zaarn]

Fusion Radiation is only immediate, ie, only in the area where the reactor is. And it can be contained with comparatively little effort, even put to use to breed Tritium for more Fusion fuel.

If a Fusion reactor blows up, the radiation risk is basically 0, aside from the lack of potential melt downs.

[phscguy]

The amount of long lived radioactive material produced by fusion reactors is many orders of magnitude less than fission. Iirc it's about the same amount of the radioactivity released as burning coal in a coal plant of the same power output.

[lambdatronics]

Yeah, I don't have much hope that the general public will understand the nuances here, especially if the greenies decide to mount a PR campaign against it. OTOH, we can call it "fusion" instead of "nuclear fusion" and that will undoubtedly help. (lol)

Fusion does indeed come with radiological hazards: a fire could release radioactive gas and dust. If designed right, the worst-case scenario would still be way less severe than for a fission plant -- and the worst-case scenario is really what stokes all the popular fears about 'nuclear'. OTOH, tritium leakage could mean that routine emissions are larger.