From what I always understood is that the high-energy neutrons produced by the fusion reaction irradiate the surrounding structure and that there is still considerable nuclear waste (although lifetimes are better than with nuclear fission). Do the scientists not care or is this outdated info?
You need to use materials that stand up well to neutron bombardment. Many materials upon neutron capture have a half life measured in seconds, which isn't a big deal. As nuclear waste disposal goes, this really isn't a concern.
I know it's better than fission, but still not nice.
If is indeed seconds, then it doesn't matter of course. I was kind of hoping to understand more about material design in the recent scientific past with this question.
This is in contrast to a fission reactor where the fuel itself turns into dangerously radioactive elements when exposed to neutrons.
EDIT: The exception is that fusion powerplant designers will want to surround the reactor with lithium in the hopes that it will absorb a neutron and turn into tritium. The tritium is then carefully gathered because it forms the the fuel for the reactor and it's hard to get except in a nuclear reactor.
OTOH, danger from irradiated materials (whatever that is, this is the first time I'm hearing this TBH) doesn't seem very pressing. I highly doubt any of the irradiated stuff would have a half life of millions of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product#Radioa...
With the reactor discussed in this article, the situation is even better, because it would use boron fusion. That reaction doesn't produce neutron radiation at all. There'd just be a tiny amount from side reactions.