[Slick]

I really don't know where the idea that fusion bombs are "clean" comes from. It doesn't come from facts. Maybe the idea is coming from the so-called "clean" fusion reactors being "cleaner" than fission reactors (fusion reactors still make lots of radiation and generate radioactive waste, it's just that they have a different public impression - and they aren't able to produce usable power yet so who knows how "clean" the final Version will be?).

However, there is absolutely no correllation between reactors and bombs.

No offense to anyone here, but it really bothers me when I see "junk science" being propagated. Someone says something that's completely wrong; either by being totally misinformed and not bothering to even check if it's correct, or by portraying themselves as an expert when they are not. Then other people read the junk and they remember it, and the next time the subject comes up, they believe it is a fact because they read it "somewhere". Then, when more than one person has this same wrong idea, it becomes "common knowledge". This is usually accompanied by "junk logic" in which preposterous conclusions are drawn from these baseless assumptions. I am flabergasted that, on the internet, anyone can say anything - true or not, and the very people who wouldn't believe the word from a total stranger on the street use the internet to find "facts". This is evidenced by a drastic move away from libraries toward the internet for "reasearch" as reported by many colleges and universities. Now, I do believe that there is a lot of good, easy to get truth on the internet; BUT, there is a lot of terrible, easy to get junk on the internet as well - and when you read either, they both kinda sound believable.

Let the reader beware.