The promotional blurb for SuperFuel by Richard Martin …
At the dawn of the atomic age, uranium and thorium were equally important as the element of choice in researching nuclear energy. Either one could have powered the world’s reactors. But it was uranium that won out, and thorium, which is far cleaner, safer, and more abundant than uranium, was relegated to the dustbin of science. With it went the possibility of creating a low risk nuclear energy source to power our planet. What might have happened had our scientists and our government, and the nuclear power industry invested the resources to develop this little known yet abundant element? Would we face a global energy crisis and the prospect of catastrophic climate change today? Why are countries around the world, including rising economic superpowers India and China, rushing to develop electricity from thorium while the United States, which studied thorium reactors extensively in the 1960s, plays catch up?
I’m sure they won’t mind me using it. Why did thorium lose out to uranium? Largely because government scale investment was needed to develop a nuclear energy and governments rather liked the fact that uranium would make very nice bombs whilst thorium would not.
bobmcgee 
I agree, thorium sounds great but . . . I suspect it would be harder to convince people of its benefits than convincing doctors to wash their hands between examining patients, (if you know what I mean).