Which gets back to my first point you can have low nitron fusion but if your generating useful amount of power your going to be makeing significant amounts of neutrons simply because there so deadly.
Do you have a reference for this? As I understand it, there aren't significant amounts of protons in our current plasma experiments to begin with, and at the densities we use in those experiments, the cross section for p-p reactions is way too small for them to appear.
> if your generating useful amount of power your going to be makeing significant amounts of neutrons
For current and foreseeable reactors, I agree; but I don't think this is a valid blanket statement about every possible type of fusion reactor that could ever be built, even when our technology has advanced well beyond where it is now.
As to the long term potential I don't think we can rule it out in the longer term, just that when people talk about fusion without neutrons they mean low levels or don't actually know what there talking about.
And I'm asking if you have seen any actual evidence that it happens. I have not, and the information I have seen, which I mentioned, leads me to believe that it should not have happened in any fusion experiments we've done to date. That's why I asked you for a reference.
> the sun is 1/10th of ITER's goal temperature so your well in the range for PP fusion
No, the ITER is not "in the range for PP fusion", because temperature is not the only requirement. You also need sufficient density. The density in the Sun's core is many orders of magnitude larger than the density of plasma in ITER or any other Earthbound fusion experiment. That has a huge effect on the PP reaction cross section.
As to PP fusion from what read. Without a large enough plasma the beta more common proton emission path >99.99% ends up costing more energy than you gain from beta-plus decay <0.01%. "The least stable is 5He, with a half-life of 7.6×10−22 seconds, although it is possible that 2He has an even shorter half-life" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28...
How much less common? Again, have you seen any actual evidence that P-P fusion events actually happen in actual Earth-bound plasmas? Because the numbers I've seen indicate that at Earth-bound plasma densities, such events are so unlikely that we should not expect to have observed any.
PS: And thanks for this, it's good to be called out on something like this. I tossed out the PP comment without thinking though simple contamination is a far larger source of high energy neutrons.
It looks to me like the comment about the rate being too small to measure in the lab applies to the PP fusion into deuterium; that's the reaction referred to in the statement you quote. The positron that's produced is not a "beta-plus decay of deuterium"; it's a product of the PP fusion into deuterium, part of the same overall reaction.
As to PP fusion from what read. Without a large enough plasma the beta more common proton emission path >99.99% ends up costing more energy than you gain from beta-plus decay <0.01%. "The least stable is 5He, with a half-life of 7.6×10−22 seconds, although it is possible that 2He has an even shorter half-life" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_.28...
You're right that there will be some fuel particles that escape confinement and react with the chamber walls; but proper confinement makes this effect very small, much smaller than the numbers you were quoting for radiation exposure, which are based on using fuels that produce neutrons as reaction products. Neutron's can't be confined in a plasma because they're uncharged, so they immediately escape and hit the chamber walls. Protons, and other fuel particles, don't have that problem since they're charged and can be confined (if they couldn't be you wouldn't be able to make the reactor work at all).