To quench your concerns a bit, I should mention that the reason nuclear has such a high safety record is because it is one of the most regulated industries, as it should be. When we consider radiation dosage levels, safe is magnitudes below what we've measured to be dangerous. Most of us that have worked in or adjacent to this technology are actually happy with this. There is real improvement that needs to be made in regulation though, because there is such a thing as too cautious (i.e. making a small reactor have the same insurance liability as a large reactor. Another example I've seen is "Hey, we did all the sims and testing, x method is better and safer and cheaper" and get responds back "x is untested in practice, we will keep doing y because it is proven." So the industry is a bit slow moving). But there are many that aren't in the industry that do not understand the nuances are try to push more. But I assure you that they don't have the ears of regulators. These are the people screaming about Thorium on Reddit that don't know a proton from an alpha particle. Every scientist I know in the field is much more risk adverse than I see in other fields. Quite frankly, for good reason. The reason for the "knows the most, fears the least" comment is because after you've studied this stuff for years, seen safety practices, understand the levels of added safety, you realize that accidents are difficult because so much thought has gone into preventing them. So armchair scientists are saying "why don't we advance like we do in other tech" but actual scientists are saying "Hey, it is time we use the decades of simulation science and knowledge in practice." The difference is subtle, but distinct. You'll find that scientists are different from your average software engineer.

I want to also say that if I see the industry moving away from its high safety principles I will gladly fight against it.