BF2S Forums US Govt: Money for war, not so much for science

Dilbert_X wrote:

Unfortunately 'Your electricity could come from fusion instead of coal and cost about the same' isn't quite up there with putting a man on the moon but really its much more important.

don't get me wrong - i'm all for funding science.  in fact i originally wanted to study particle physics but my math ability held me back - only made it to quantum physics I and not beyond.  my argument is that it's how it gets marketed that is the problem - that should be fixed. 

regarding the fusion thing, nuke reactors have a stigma attached to them due to TMI, Chernobyl and others.  Plus, what to do with the spent fuel, etc.  i think these things are likely overcomable, but the public needs to enable this to be pursued.  the anti-nuke lobby is not helping things here. 

on a science note, how do they contain a fusion reaction given that it would melt or vaporize all the materials that could contain it?  do they use mag field to keep the reaction localized?