Let's say I had a tested, working LFTR design. Do you really think it would be very hard to convince the public that it is inherently safer than other fission designs. Safer than a coal plant. Safer than hydroelectric. It is pretty easy to understand that a plant that is inherently impossible to cause a melt-down might be a different kind of plant than a light-water reactor design.
True, there is radiation, but it is very modest. Few people seem to have NIMBY issues with LWR reactors based on the normal radiation. It is the fear of a Chernobyl event.
I don't think Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is really the problem these days (aside from the green activists that want to enter the stone age), but that the generation experience was lost due to these disaster as well as the passive uranium cycle designs in the company fallout. To be fair, the modern nuclear reactor designs are pretty decent, but the lost generations really hurt the industry.