The only radioactive waste that a nuclear reactor would produce is the reactor itself and to lesser extent the radiation shielding surrounding it. The neutron flux will cause isotope changes in anything that it hits. The amount of neutrons per reaction will be a pretty important factor on how fast the reactor will become so radioactive that maintenance and structural integrity start to suffer, but it still takes a long, long time as far as I know - and the fission based reactors are equally susceptible to this phenomena, as they too produce a neutron flux. Fusion reactors have theoretical capacity for so much bigger energy yields that the neutron-induced radioactivity won't really be an issue, since the nuclear fuel itself will become helium-4 or some other stable isotope, depending on the reaction.
Besides, some of the neutron flux will actually be used to produce tritium - by simply covering the insides of the reactor with lithium-6.
What comes to risks of nuclear accident, a fusion power plant is inherently more safe than any fission based power plants. First, the amount of fusion material in the reactor is a lot lot less than in fission reactors. Secondly, the moment the magnetic confinement of plasma goes down, the reaction will stop; the only energy released would be the thermal energy of the plasma inside the reactor. There won't be more energy produced after the reaction is interrupted. And what energy is released won't be sufficient to do any serious harm; at best it'll scorch the insides of the reactor a bit but not by much, they are after all designed to absorb the radiation from the reaction and conduct it as heat to generate kinetic energy in turbines and further electricity by generators... Thirdly, the fusion material converts into safer material (easiest reaction to achieve produces Helium-4), unlike in fission reactors where the fissile materials change into quite a bit more hazardous elements. A terrorist attack would cause the same things - the reaction would just stop, it wouldn't become a hydrogen bomb, and the only damage would be from the attack itself.
Fourthly, fusion reactor technology is very very different from fusion bomb technology, unlike fission reactor technology which has a lot to do with fission bombs - mainly in the sense that fission reactors can be used to make fission bomb materials (plutonium), whereas fusion reactors produce Helium, and the tritium that are stored at the fusion power plant cannot directly be used to just put together to make a bomb, unlike Plutonium. Anyone who steals tritium is not very sensible, as there's really no way to use it as such - it's chemically hydrogen so it will seep through metal tanks in time, and it's active so it will change into deuterium (IIRC) by time, so you can't even store it for sustained periods of time. Whereas like I said, if you're mad enough you can theoretically steal two clumps of plutonium, go into some city with them in separate suitcases, then take them out and slam them together. Boom.
To me it appears as this Bridget Woodman is not very well versed in how fusion reaction and reactors work... which makes Greenpiece look like ass (not an uncommon occasion).
By the way, didn't one of the previous GP leaders completely change their mind about fission reactors some years ago?
As to most wasteful way to produce energy, I'd have to say coal. It produces incredible amounts of waste (CO
2, particle emissions, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen) compared to even hydrocarbons like methane or oil-derivative fuels...
However, as far as inefficiency goes, I would say that using energy to make hydrogen, then use that in fuel cells to produce electricity scores pretty high as far as I know.
Fusion reactors will naturally have pretty low efficiency for a while, but due to small amounts of fuel used and negligible waste production, it would be more sustainable than fossile fuels and fission reactors.
Also, burning human carcasses for energy wouldn't be very efficient at all, because fresh bodies have about 75% water in them. You would need to dry them first, resulting in about 75% weight loss (a hundred kilogram body would result in 25% combustable material) and unless you either use a lot of energy to dry them, you would end up with rotting corpses... on the other hand you could use the gases released in the process as well. Hmm. How about being grinded and dumped into a bioreactor?
