Safe Atomic Fission Energy From Thorium?

We've heard promises of safe, cheap atomic energy using uranium before, but thorium has a range of advantages, including being much more abundant &, maybe, safer:

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/the-reactor-that-saves-itself-safe-nuclear-does-exist-and--china-leads-the-way-with-thorium-20110323-1c6eb.html

So if thorium has so many advantages, why has humanity persevered with uranium for so long?  It has been suggested by many, including the article above, that uranium use has been driven by military interests (in several countries) that want to use uranium (& its daughter element plutonium) for bombs.  Notch one more up for thorium.

Is It Possible To Build A Disaster-Proof Nuclear Power Plant?

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/03/is-it-possible-to-build-a-disaster-proof-nuclear-power-plant/

 Is it? – Not prior to 1996 according to Gizmodo.  The industry that promised "electricity too cheap to meter" in the fifties, safety at Three Mile Island, Windscale (subsequently renamed Sellafield – only the names have been changed to protect the guilty), Chernobyl & until now Fukushima, promises that post 1996 reactors are safe.  Anyone else seeing a pattern?