The idea of Thorium reactors as a better nuclear fuel option, gets proposed frequently on HN. There are real issues with it though. There are reasons why it is not a fuel of choice today, that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. A small amount of searching will reveal this.
Thorium molten salt reactors need an attached chemical reprocessing plant which runs on radioactive fluoride fuel salts. Chemical processing plants for radioactive materials are a huge headache. Most of the older ones are now Superfund toxic sites.
The great thing about pressurized-water reactors and boiling water reactors is that they work on water, which is easy to handle and doesn't itself become highly radioactive. The radioactive portions of commercial nuclear reactors are very simple, with very few moving parts. The complexity is outside the reactor vessel.
Most of the alternative reactor designs have much more complex radioactive portions. Pebble bed reactors get pebble jams. (An experimental pebble-bed reactor in Germany has been jammed for decades, and still can't be decommissioned.) Helium-cooled reactors leak. (Ft. St. Vrain was so promising.) Sodium cooled reactors have sodium fires.
That's why alternative nuclear technologies haven't caught on. If you need 40 years of trouble-free operation to make a plant pay, none of those technologies qualify.
10 seconds on a search engine will supply 1000's of links to issues with Thorium and LFTR, some of which are high quality and some of which are garbage. Note that the OP did not provide links in support of their position.
You have a chance to add more to conversation than the OP, then. For myself, I'd be very interested in two or three relevant links, if you can provide them.
