As for the amount of radioactive material, the experimental reactors are several times the size of fission reactors. It is obvious that they irradiate far more material.
There is a very well researched youtube video that goes over these things:
Quenching isn't random. The waste has a half life of 10 years. You can use an idiotic unit like total mass of material without taking into account level of radioactivity or half life, but that's not even worth discussing.
"Quenching isn't random" is a big change from "it doesn't happen". Quenching is random for all intents and purpose, which is why test fusion reactors have systems in place to try to detect and respond to it before very bad things happen. If they knew when it would happen, they would not need such detectors.
As for the waste, you are still going to have to pay per unit to clean it up, just like you would with waste from a nuclear fission reactor. You have far more of it since the volume being irradiated is far higher. Although it is by volume rather than by weight, a decomissioned MH-1A PWR power plant produced 89 m^3 of solid radioactive waste and 363 m^3 of liquid waste:
The youtube video stated that the cleanup effort for the Joint European Torus was projected to produce 3000m^3 of waste, and the ITER reactor would be 10 times its size. Neither of them produced or will produce useful energy, yet they produced / will produce orders of magnitude more waste when it is time to decommission them than a decommissioned fission reactor did.
It also does not matter if the half lives are lower. It is still not going to be safe to be around that stuff long after both of us are dead and buried. The costs are effectively the same, since they will both be disposed in the same way.
Yeah, that doesn't happen
> The amount of radioactive materials produced from the experiments are many times those produced in fission reactors.
And neither does this