Since the reactors would ostensibly be continuously operating, the danger is the same. 10+ year half life is about as dangerous as 10000 years because you are always generating the waste.
It also doesn't matter that no specific nuclear reactor will have a lifetime of 10,000 years. The problem is that per megawatt of energy generated, fission theoretically creates (much) longer-lived waste than fusion. Over a longer-than-one-hundred-year timeframe, equivalent amounts of energy generation result in vastly different waste carrying costs. Fusion's waste carrying costs are much lower.
And obviously that number is even more in favor of fusion if it only takes 10 years. (ITER claims 100 years though: https://www.iter.org/sci/Fusion)
Firstly, 10 years worth of energy is inside a fission reactor and is capable of releasing most of that energy in an instant if not properly controlled. This cannot happen in a fusion reactor. A year's worth of fuel is in a gas tank on the wall and needs absurd conditions to ignite. It cannot happen spontaneously.
Secondly, the exhaust is helium-4: a stable isotape of a valuable element.
Thirdly, the neutron bombardment in a fusion reactor activate the materials they hit. If they hit lithium then they make tritium: a much needed isotape for fuel in first generation fusion reactors. The other materials they hit are chosen to have half-lives of less than 100 years. So you have a nuclear site that no one's allowed to touch for a while then you can recycle the materials. It's nothing like the transuranium nuclear waste from fission plants.
10 years isn't 5 minutes, but it means you just need to keep it secure for a few decades before burying and forgetting it rather than many human lifetimes.
Any leaks will be (to some extent) self-cleaning, insofar as they'll decay substantially within a human lifetime, so if you stop the leak you can wait a couple decades and it will have cleaned itself up. That's much better than the long-life stuff fission produces.