More than you could ever want to know about such things here:
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro.txt
I wouldn't call the information in this quoted section "wrong," but it is more than a little misleading and, being generous, more than a little "overly optimistic" in presentation.
I support Fusion (and Fission) power, and many of my own resources tend to post optimistic pictures for such, but it would be disingenuous and counter-productive, IMO, to fawn over such technologies without presenting a realistic perspective of the downsides of such technologies along with the potential upsides.
FUSION AS A FUTURE POWER SOURCE: RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS AND PROSPECTS
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis...pers/18th_Congress/downloads/ds/ds6/ds6_5.pdf
According to this reference, fission and fusion power systems produce roughly the same order of magnitude of radioactinide wastes (volume) though they both tend to contain much higher amounts of short and mid-term "Hot" isotopes. For Fission products many of these isotopes have much longer half-lives, meaning that they remain problematic for thousands/tens-of-thousands of years (unless they are "burnt" in other types of reactors). Fusion spawned actinides tend to be very "hot" but, much shorter half-lived isotopes. so while over the course of 50 years the Fusion radioactinides may lose 2.5 orders of magnitude (~10
11Sv -> 10
8.5Sv) from their initial strength, the rate of decline slows considerably after that taking some 500 years or so before they drop to the level of coal ash, which is considered by many experts to be a dangerous and radioactive waste product.
The point here is not that fusion is undesirable or unnecessary, merely that it comes with its own problems and is not an energy panacea. Special materials can extend the useful lives of fusion systems, but they add expense and do not even double the life. A sealed mine where trailer mounted units could be parked for 50-100years would reduce the hazards of ultimately deconstructing and cleaning-up or recycling the cores and neutron absorbing tritium breeder systems. Or, like fission waste, a system could be set-up to separate out the shorter half-life actinides and "burn" them, but these are additional issues that need to be considered and discussed in association with such systems, not something that should be swept under the carpet or left unacknowledged by those promoting these technologies for more widespread application.
